The purpose of tort law is to compensate innocent victims who are injured as a result of another’s carelessness or misconduct. Usually, that means awarding damages in an amount that is sufficient to compensate a successful plaintiff for damages actually suffered as a result of a defendant’s carelessness. When the defendant’s conduct is sufficiently outrageous, however, the law permits courts to award punitive damages.
Many plaintiffs seek punitive damages for injuries that seemingly arise out of ordinary negligence. However, courts have shown that they are still reluctant to impose punitive damages in the average lawsuit. In Dawson v. YMCA of Long Is., Inc., the plaintiff’s decedent was a former lifeguard who decided to see how long he could hold his breath underwater at a YMCA swimming pool. While the defendant submitted evidence the decision was the sole proximate cause of the decedent’s death, the court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s negligence cause of action because the plaintiff submitted evidence which would permit a jury to conclude that the YMCA was negligent in taking too long to pull the former lifeguard from the water.
However, the court ruled that the YMCA was entitled to summary judgment with respect to the plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages. Recognizing that punitive damages are appropriate “where a plaintiff establishes that the defendant’s conduct evinced a high degree of moral turpitude and demonstrated behavior that equated to criminal indifference to civil obligations,” the court held that the alleged failure to pull the victim from the water more quickly “did not rise to the level of moral culpability required to impose punitive damages.”
It is unlikely that Dawson will deter plaintiffs from seeking punitive damages, but the decision shows that courts can be reluctant to even put the issue before a jury unless there is some evidence of particularly outrageous or immoral conduct beyond mere carelessness. While the YMCA and other similarly situated defendants still have a negligence battle to fight, Dawson provides some reassurance that their potential exposure will not be magnified simply because the plaintiff is a sympathetic figure.
Thanks to Michael Gauvin for his contribution.