 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
G.J.D. v. Johnson6/26/1998
Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court dated December 12, 1995, at No. 539 Harrisburg 1994, affirming the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Perry County, Civil Division, dated July 18, 1994, at No. 87-171
ARGUED December 11, 1996
We granted allocatur to determine whether punitive damages may be recovered from the estate of a deceased tortfeasor. We hold that such damages may be recovered, and therefore affirm.
Appellee G.J.D. and Darwin Thebes were involved in an intimate relationship for approximately five years. During that time Thebes took sexually explicit photographs of G.J.D. which he then kept hidden. G.J.D. did not see the photographs until several years later after she had ended her relationship with Thebes.
G.J.D. alleged that Thebes distributed photocopies of the photographs throughout the community when he learned she was ending their relationship. The photocopies included G.J.D.'s address and phone number as well as captions which implied that she was a prostitute. The distribution of the photocopies was calculated to ensure that they would be found by G.J.D.'s friends and relatives including her minor children, her mother, her brother, and her employer . The distribution of the photocopies ended when G.J.D. filed a complaint against Thebes containing counts of defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false light invasion of privacy, and invasion of privacy by publicity given to private life.
Before the case came to trial, Thebes committed suicide and his sister Geraldine Johnson, Appellant, as executrix of his estate, was substituted as defendant. The case was then tried before a jury which awarded both compensatory and punitive damages to G.J.D. and to her children as co-plaintiffs.
The Superior Court upheld the award of damages, holding that where a tortfeasor dies after the suit is instituted but before the completion of trial, punitive damages may be assessed against the estate of the deceased tortfeasor.
On appeal, neither the decedent's culpability nor the award of compensatory damages is at issue. Appellant argues only that the recovery of punitive damages against the decedent's estate is improper because neither of the recognized policy objectives of punitive damages, punishment and deterrence, will be fulfilled when the person to be punished and deterred is deceased.
In Pennsylvania, the "function of punitive damages is to deter and punish egregious behavior." Martin v. Johns-Manville Corp., 508 Pa. 154, 169, 494 A.2d 1088, 1096 (1985) (citations omitted). Punitive damages may be imposed for "torts that are committed willfully, maliciously, or so carelessly as to indicate wanton disregard of the rights of the party injured." Thompson v. Swank, 317 Pa. 158, 159, 176 A.2d 211, 212 (1934). Punitive damages are not awarded as additional compensation but are purely penal in nature. See Colodonato v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 504 Pa. 80, 470 A.2d 475 (1983); Int'l Electronics Co. v. N.S.T. Metal Prod. Co., 370 Pa. 213, 88 A.2d 40 (1952).
Although the issue of whether the recovery of punitive damages is permitted against a deceased tortfeasor's estate is an issue of first impression in our Commonwealth, it has been addressed by the courts and legislatures of thirty-three jurisdictions. In twenty-eight of these jurisdictions recovery is not allowed. Fourteen states have enacted legislation explicitly precluding such a recovery, and in the states which have no statutory bar to recovery, the courts are split as to whether recovery will be allowed. The majority of courts that have addressed this issue have held that punitive damages may not be recovered fr
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|