The Supreme Court of Tennessee has explained that “[a] person acts recklessly when the person is aware of, but consciously disregards, a substantial and unjustifiable risk of such a nature that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances.” Hodges, 833 S.W.2d at 901; Medlin, 59 Fed.Appx. at 774; see Goff, 297 S.W.2d at 187 & n.11; Richardson v. Gibalski, 625 S.W.2d 715, 717 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979).

Instead of going on to the next exit, the truck driver attempted to turn his rig around on the interstate itself, with a view to driving back the wrong way to an interchange he had passed before his breakdown. The tractor-trailer got stuck midway through the turn, and shortly thereafter the plaintiff's decedent slammed into it. Citing Richardson v. Gibalski, 625 S.W.2d 715 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1979), for the proposition that under Tennessee law "it takes something far greater than lack of ordinary care to sustain an award for punitive damages," this court concluded that there was sufficient evidence of gross negligence to justify submission of the punitive damages issue to the jury. We think that the degree of Mr. Ritter's negligence is more like that of the defendant in Southeastern Aviation, Inc. v. Hurd, 209 Tenn. 639, 355 S.W.2d 436 (1962), a wrongful death action arising from an airplane crash.

Inland Container Corp. v. March, 529 S.W.2d 43, 44-45 (Tenn. 1975); Richardson v. Gibalski, 625 S.W.2d 715, 717 (Tenn.App. 1979). Upon a review of the record, we affirm the district court's denial of punitive damages.

These matters were vigorously argued to the trial judge both during and after trial, and this court is constrained to respect his rulings on these issues of state law. The present definition for conduct for which punitive damages would be allowed under Tennessee law may be found in Richardson v. Gibalski, 625 S.W.2d 715 (Tenn.App. 1979), as follows: "As has been pointed out by our appellate courts so many times, it takes something far greater than lack of ordinary care to sustain an award for punitive damages. . . . They are awarded in cases involving fraud, malice, gross negligence or oppression . . . or where a wrongful act is done with a bad motive or so recklessly as to imply a disregard of social obligation, . . . or where there is such willful misconduct or entire want of care as to raise a presumption of conscious indifference to consequences . . . or to amount to positive misconduct."

"[I]t takes something far greater than lack of ordinary care to sustain an award for punitive damages." Richardson v. Gibalski, 625 S.W.2d 715, 717 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979). Tennessee courts permit punitive damages in automobile accident cases "[i]n some limited circumstances."

"[I]t takes something far greater than lack of ordinary care to sustain an award for punitive damages." Richardson v. Gibalski, 625 S.W.2d 715, 717 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1979). Thus, even viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, it would not support an award of punitive damages under current Tennessee law.

"It takes something far greater than lack of ordinary care to sustain an award for punitive damages." Richardson v. Gibalski, 625 S.W.2d 715, 717 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1979); see alsoNelms v. Walgreen Co., C.A. No. 02A01-9805-CV-00137, 1999 Tenn. App. LEXIS 437, (Tenn.Ct.App. July 7, 1999) (affirming the trial court's ruling that although the evidence "clearly supported a claim of ordinary negligence, the evidence did not support a finding that [defendant pharmacists] engaged in reckless conduct such as to constitute a gross deviation from the required standard of care"); Anthony v. Construction Products, Inc., 677 S.W.2d 4, 9 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1984) (finding that, although the proof introduced was sufficient to create an issue for the jury as to whether a defendant exercised reasonable and ordinary care, the record did not support an award of punitive damages based on recklessness). It has been established that, under Tennessee law, "a product liability claimant who presents sufficient evidence to satisfy the Tennessee standard for receiving punitive damages will not be foreclosed from such a recovery simply because his cause of action is founded upon a th