Abstract
On four separate occasions between December 1981 and February 1982, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court called into question the continued vitality of the common law doctrine of punitive damages. The substantive propriety of punitive damages was not challenged by any of the defendants in those four cases. As a result, the Law Court assumed for the purposes of each opinion that punitive damages could be awarded by a court "in some instances without explicit statutory authorization." Nevertheless, in a footnote to Braley v. Berkshire Mutual Insurance Co., the court challenged this assumption. Noting that the doctrine of punitive damages initially was implemented by a divided court in 1861, the Braley court asserted that the "judicially created rule . . . is open to reconsideration in light of modern considerations and authorities [and because] it may not have been thoroughly examined since then." An examination of the rationale and effectiveness of the doctrine of punitive damages, however, reveals that the doctrine is as vital today as it was when it was implemented. Indeed, in some circumstances, modifications in the application of the doctrine have provided adaptation to the needs of modern society, making the use of punitive damages even more important than a century ago. This does not mean necessarily that the doctrine is faultless. Nevertheless, the problems which are associated with the doctrine warrant its modification, not wholesale renunciation. When the conduct of a defendant evidences "malice or wanton and reckless disregard of [a] plaintiff's rights," more than merely compensatory damages generally ought to be awarded.
First Page
447
Recommended Citation
Kevin F. Gordon,
The Vitality of the Doctrine of Punitive Damages in Maine,
35
Me. L. Rev.
447
(1983).
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr/vol35/iss2/11