Punitive damages for marketing misconduct have been granted to plaintiffs in product liability litigation over the past 15 years. In this article, the doctrine of punitive damages is defined and its application in several cases involving marketing activities is presented. Several conclusions relevant to marketers are drawn from these developments. Overall, marketing plays a pivotal role, both in product liability lawsuits asking for punitive damages and in firms’ anticipating and avoiding situations calling for exemplary awards.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Laundry Machinery Industries v. Horan (1980), CCH Prod.Liab.Rep. para. 8634, 412 A.2d 407 (Md. Ct. Spec. App.).
2.
American Motors Corporation v. Ellis (1981), CCH Prod.Liab.Rep. para. 9037 (Fla. Ct. App.).
3.
Art Hill Ford, Inc. v. Callender (1981), CCH Prod.Liab.Rep. para. 9051 (Ind. Sup. Ct.).
4.
Barth v. B. F. Goodrich Tire Co. (1968), 265 Cal. App. 2d 288, 71 Cal. Rptr. 306.
ChandranRajan, and LinnemanRobert (1978), “Planning to Minimize Product Liability,”Sloan Management Review, 30 (Fall), 33–45.
10.
CocciaMichel A. and MorriseyFrancis D. (1978), “Punitive Damages in Product Liability Cases Should Not Be Allowed,”Trial Lawyers Guide22 (Spring), 46–65.
11.
Deemer v. A. H. Robins Co. (1972), No. C-26420 (Dist. Ct., Sedgwick County, Kansas, Oct.), appeal, No. 48,504 (Kan. Sup. Ct., Aug. 23, 1976).
12.
DobbsDan B. (1973), Handbook on the Law of Remedies, St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing Co.
13.
Dorsey v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd. (1981), CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. para. 9072 (5th Cir.).
Drayton v. Jiffee Chemical Corp. (1978), 591 F.2d 352 (6th Cir.).
16.
DriverGodfrey R. and MilesJohn C. (1975), The Assyrian Laws.Germany: Scientia Verlag Aalen.
17.
ElfinRodman M. (1981), “The Changing Philosophy of Products Liability and the Proposed Model Uniform Product Liability Act,”American Business Law Journal19 (Fall), 267–94.
E. R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. v. Stickney (1973), 274 S.2d 898 (Fla.Ct.App.), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 961 (1974).
20.
Fleet v. Hollenkamp (1852), 52 Ky. 219, 13 B.Mon. 175.
21.
Ford Motor Co. v. Mayes (1978), CCH Prod.Liab.Rep. para. 8381, 575 S.W.2d 480 (Ky.Ct.App.).
22.
Forest City Machine Works, Inc. v. Aderhold (1981), CCH Prod.Liab.Rep. para. 9008 (Ark.Sup.Ct.).
23.
FultonJohn A. (1979), “Punitive Damages in Product Liability Litigation,”Forum15 (Fall), 117–36.
24.
G. D. Searle & Co. v. Superior Court (1975), 49 Cal. App. 3d 22, 122 Cal. Rptr. 218.
25.
Genay v. Norris (1784), 1 S.C. 3, 1 Bay 6.
26.
GhiardiJames D. and KoehnNatalie B. (1977), “Punitive Damages in Strict Liability Cases,”Marquette Law Review61 (Winter), 245–51.
27.
Gillham v. The Admiral Corp. (1975), 523 F.2d 102 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 913, 96 S.Ct. 1113 (1976).
28.
Gryc v. Dayton-Hudson Corp. (1980), 297 N.W.2d 727 (Minn.).
29.
HaskellDonald M. (1974), “The Aircraft Manufacturer's Liability for Design and Punitive Damages—The Insurance Policy and the Public Policy,”Journal of Air Law & Commerce40 (Autumn), 595–635.
30.
Hayman v. Arcoa, Inc. (1970), Civ.No. 70–3226 [20th Jud.Cir., St. Clair County, Ill., filed April 30).
31.
Hibschman Pontiac, Inc. v. Batchelor (1976), CCH Prod.Liab.Rep. para. 7588, 340 N.E.2d 377 (Ind.Ct.App.).
32.
HoenigMichael (1980), “Products Liability and Punitive Damages,”Insurance Law Journal, 1980 (April), 198–205.
33.
Hoffman v. Sterling Drug, Inc. (1973), 485 F.2d 132 (3rd Cir.), 18 A.T.L.A.N.L. 120.
34.
Huckle v. Money (1763), 2 Wils. 205 (K.B.).
35.
ISO (1977), Product Liability Closed Claim Survey: A Technical Analysis of Survey Results.New York: Insurance Services Office.
36.
Johnson v. Husky Industries, Inc. (1976), 536 F.2d 645 (6th Cir.).
Rawlings Sporting Goods Co., Inc. v. Daniels (1981), CCH Prod.Liab.Rep. para. 9090, 619 S.W.2d 435 (Tex.Ct.Civ.App.).
52.
Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965), American Law Institute.
53.
Rinker v. Ford Motor Co. (1978), 567 S.W.2d 655 (Mo.App.).
54.
Roach v. Kononen (1974), 269 Ore. 457, 525 P.2d 125.
55.
Robert v. Ford Motor Co. (1980), CCH Prod.Liab.Rep. para. 8619 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.).
56.
Roginsky v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc. (1967), 378 F.2d 382 (2nd Cir.), rev'd in part, 254 F.Supp. 430 (S.D.N.Y. 1966).
57.
Rosendin v. Avco Lycoming Div. (1972), No. 202,715 (Super.Ct., Santa Clara County, Cal., March 8), noted in, 15 A.T.L.A.N.L. 103, 16 Jury Verdicts Weekly 49 (Feb. 18), aff'd, Civ.No. 32,999 (Cal.Ct.App., 1st App.Dist., June 23, 1976), cert. denied, Sup.Ct.Cal. (1976).
58.
RossKenneth and FoleyMartin J. (1979), Product Liability of Manufacturers: Prevention and Defense.New York: Practising Law Institute.
59.
RossKenneth and FoleyMartin J. (1981), “Legal and Practical Considerations for the Creation of Warning Labels and Instruction Books,”Journal of Products Liability4 (No. 1), 29–45.
Smith v. Cessna Aircraft Co. (1972), No. 70–9255–L (193rd Jud.Dist.Ct., Dallas County, Texas, Nov. 26), noted in, 16 A.T.L.A.N.L. 30 (1973).
67.
SnymanP. C. A. (1977), “The Validity of Punitive Damages in Product Liability Cases,”Insurance Counsel Journal44 (July), 402–7.
68.
Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. v. Day (1979), 594 P.2d 38 (Alas.), modified on rehearing, 615 P.2d 621 (1980).
69.
TerflingerCurtis D. (1981), “Punitive Damage Awards in Product Liability Cases: Enforcing Corporate Social Responsibility,”Proceedings, Midwest Regional Business Law Association, 91–101.
70.
Thomas v. American Cystoscope Makers, Inc. (1976), 414 F.Supp. 255 (E.D.Pa.).
71.
Toole v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc. (1967), 251 Cal.App.2d 689, 60 Cal.Rptr. 398.
72.
Utterman v. Johnson & Johnson (1981), CCH Prod.Liab.Rep. para. 9082 (Mo.Ct.App.).
73.
Wangen v. Ford Motor Co. (1980), 294 N.W.2d 437, 97 Wis.2d 260.
74.
WeingardenHarvey R. (1980), “Exemplary Damages in Products Liability Cases,”Detroit College of Law Review, 1980 (Summer), 647–67.
75.
WMLR (1981), “Punitive Damages in Products Liability Actions: A Look at a Newly Extended Doctrine,”William Mitchell Law Review, 7 (No. 1), 185–219.
76.
Wussow v. Commercial Mechanisms, Inc. (1980), CCH Prod.Liab.Rep. para. 8704 (Wis.Sup.Ct.).
