Punitive Damage Awards

I read with disbelief Edwin Yoder’s column on the punitive damage award against General Motors (“A Case of Misplaced Blame,” Commentary, Feb. 10).

As Yoder must be well aware, punitive damages are awarded very infrequently and only in cases of the worst kind of corporate conduct. From 1965 through 1990, there were only 355 punitive damage awards on product liability actions, hardly evidence of a system “grossly out of hand.”

For anyone to sit as an armchair quarterback and hint darkly of the motives of those who serve as witnesses or the motives of corporate executives simply underscores the value of our right to trial by jury. It is only through the American civil justice system that the powerful and powerless can meet, present their cases to a jury of peers, and be judged accordingly.

Those questioning the value of punitive damages must be seriously questioned about their motives. In California, for example, in order for a jury to award punitive damages, it must be concluded by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was guilty of “despicable” conduct. Corporations cannot be imprisoned and corporate executives are rarely, if ever, brought up on criminal charges for knowingly violating the rights of consumers. Punitive damages are meant to punish, but more importantly, to deter future companies from putting profit considerations above safety considerations.

GARY PAUL, President

California Trial Lawyers Assn.

Sacramento