 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stewart v. Estate of Cooper4/24/2003
TO BE PUBLISHED
AFFIRMING
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter presents an issue of first impression. Appellants suffered injuries in an automobile collision caused by a drunken driver, and later filed a lawsuit in which they sought compensatory and punitive damages. The driver, however, died before trial, and upon Appellants' motion, the trial court substituted the decedent driver's estate as a party defendant. The trial court then granted the estate's motion to dismiss Appellant's punitive damage claim and ruled that KRS 411.184 does not authorize a punitive damage award against a party - such as the decedent driver's estate - that did not act toward Appellants with oppression, fraud, or malice. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and we granted discretionary review to consider whether, under Kentucky law, a plaintiff may recover punitive damages from a decedent tortfeasor's estate for the decedent tortfeasor's oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious conduct. We conclude that the answer to this question lies in the plain language of KRS 411.184(2), which limits punitive damages' availability to cases where the plaintiff proves "that the defendant from whom such damages are sought acted toward the plaintiff with oppression, fraud or malice." Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In October, 1992, James Cooper, while driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, caused an accident in which Appellants were injured. Appellants filed a lawsuit in Boyd Circuit Court in which they sought both compensatory and punitive damages from James Cooper, but James Cooper died before the case came to trial. However, on Appellants' motion, the trial court substituted the Estate of James Cooper ("the Estate"), Betty Coomer Cooper, Executrix, as a party defendant. The Estate stipulated to its liability, but sought to limit both its compensatory damage exposure - by contesting the nature and extent of Appellants' injuries and by seeking an apportionment of fault for those injuries - and its punitive damage exposure - by arguing that Appellants could not recover punitive damages from the Estate for the decedent's conduct. As to the question of punitive damages, the trial court held that the Estate did not act with the requisite oppression, fraud, or malice and granted the Estate's motion in limine asking it to dismiss the Appellants' punitive damages claim :
hen you review the punitive damages statute itself, it says that punitive damages are only to be recovered against a party who has committed either malice or acts of oppression.... laintiffs are seeking to recover punitive damages from the Estate of James Cooper, there's no evidence in the record that the Estate... did anything that would amount to any kind of behavior that falls within the purview of the punitive damages statute.... So... the punitive damages claim... is not recoverable as an element of damages.
Appellants' remaining damage claims were tried before a jury, and the trial court entered judgment upon a jury's verdict that found Appellants entitled to compensation for past medical expenses and past pain and suffering, but apportioned to Appellants twenty percent (20%) of the responsibility for their injuries.
Appellants then appealed to the Court of Appeals, and argued that the trial court erred by failing to permit the jury to consider the issue of punitive damages. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling. We granted Appellants' Motion for Discretionary Review..
III. ANALYSIS
In their brief to this Court, Appellants argue not only that the trial court and the. C
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Kentucky DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|