OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORP. V. MALONE 972 S.W.2d 35 (1998) CASE BRIEF

OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORP. V. MALONE

972 S.W.2d 35 (1998)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Owens (D) petitioned for review of judgments of the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas and the Third District of Texas that affirmed trial court judgments awarding punitive damages, arguing that the trial courts erred in excluding evidence in mitigation of punitive damages and that the awards, when aggregated with prior punitive damage awards, violated constitutional due process requirements.

FACTS: This case involves three consolidated suits for injuries allegedly caused by asbestos-containing products that D produced or marketed. The parties tried Malone under Texas substantive law. Based on the jury's verdict, the trial court rendered judgment for the plaintiffs for $3.03 million total actual damages and $1.5 million total punitive damages. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. Wasiak involves four consolidated asbestos cases against D. In two cases, the decedents died of mesothelioma, a cancer related to asbestos exposure. In the other two cases, the plaintiffs were diagnosed with asbestosis, a scarring of the lungs caused by exposure to asbestos. The parties tried Wasiak under Alabama substantive law. After reducing the jury's verdict to reflect settlement credits from settling defendants, the trial court rendered judgment for the plaintiffs for about $1.6 million total actual damages and about $3.7 million total punitive damages. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. D offered evidence about punitive damages against D under the theme that 'enough is enough.' The trial court excluded this evidence. The court of appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it sustained, in part, the plaintiffs' objections and excluded all but the net worth evidence. D asserts that if the trial court had allowed testimony about matters beyond net worth, it would have established that twenty-eight prior Kaylo-related punitive damage judgments totaling $51,710,200 had been awarded against D. However, the 'enough is enough' evidence shows, and D has only paid about $3 million in punitive damages for Kaylo-related claims. D argues that the excluded evidence is relevant to the punitive damages determination consistent with the purposes of punishment and deterrence. D argues that the excluded evidence is relevant to the factors that the trial court instructed the jury to consider in determining punitive damages: (1) the nature of the wrong; (2) the character of the conduct involved; (3) the culpability of the wrongdoer; (4) the situation and sensibilities of the parties; and (5) the extent to which the defendant's conduct offends the public's sense of justice and propriety.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner