Opinion
Case No. 2:03CV00814 DB.
May 18, 2005
MITCHEL T. RICE, MORGAN, MINNOCK, RICE JAMES, L.C. Salt Lake City, Utah, Attorneys for Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
COHNE, RAPPAPORT SEGAL, P.C. Jeffrey R. Oritt Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES
On April 6, 2005, this matter came on for hearing on the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Third Cause of Action for Punitive Damages of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Defendant in the above-entitled action, with Mitchel T. Rice appearing as the Attorney for Wal-Mart Stores and Jeffery R. Oritt appearing as Attorney for Plaintiffs Deborah and Paul Steed.
After reading Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, the Memoranda in Support thereof, Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition thereto, and after consideration of oral arguments from Counsel, the Court hereby ORDERS and presents its findings and conclusions as follows:
1. The Court concludes that the standards for awarding punitive damage under Utah law are set forth in Utah Code Ann. § 78-18-1(1)(a) and provide that "punitive damages may be awarded only if compensatory or general damages are awarded and it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the acts or omissions of the tortfeasor are the result of willful and malicious or intentionally fraudulent conduct, or conduct that manifests a knowing and reckless indifference toward, and a disregard of the rights of others."
2. The Court further concludes that punitive damages should be awarded infrequently and only in exceptional cases. Behrens v. Raleigh Hills Hosp. Inc. 675 P.2d 1179 (Utah 1983); Boyette v. L.W. Looney Son, Inc., 932 F. Supp. 1344 (D. Utah 1996). Simple negligence will never suffice as a basis on which punitive damages may be awarded. Gleave v. Denver Rio Grande Western R.R. Co., 749 P.2d 660 (Utah Ct.App. 1988).
3. The Court finds that, even when construing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, no reasonable jury could conclude that Wal-Mart's actions in the display of its lamps was the "result of willful and malicious or intentionally fraudulent conduct, or conduct that manifests a knowing and reckless indifference toward, and a disregard of, the rights of others." Utah Code Ann. § 78-18-1(1)(a).
4. The Court concludes that Utah Code Ann. § 78-18-1(1)(a) has not been satisfied, and that there is no showing of evidence warranting punitive damages.
5. The Court further finds that the purpose of punitive damages, to punish and deter outrageous and malicious conduct, will not be advanced by an award of punitive damages. Miskin v. Carter, 761 P.2d 1378 (Utah 1988). The Court is persuaded by the evidence that Wal-Mart Stores had a policy in place for the safe display of merchandise, and there is no evidence that the stacking of lamps in an unsafe manner is a repeated problem in the store.
6. The Court therefore concludes as a matter of law that Plaintiffs do not present sufficient evidence to support a punitive damages award.
7. Based on all of the reasons cited above, and the reasons set forth in Defendant Wal-Mart Stores' Memoranda in Support of Motion, the Court hereby grants Defendant Wal-Mart Stores' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment dismissing Plaintiffs' Third Cause of Action for Punitive Damages.
8. If additional evidence is discovered before trial that would support a punitive damages claim, the Court will permit Plaintiffs to file a Motion to Reconsider this Order dismissing Plaintiffs' Third Cause of Action. The Court adds that the evidence would have to be substantially greater than the evidence now on record for the Court to entertain a Motion to Reconsider.