503.1 Punitive Damages - Bifurcated Procedure

503.1 Punitive Damages - Bifurcated Procedure a. First stage of bifurcated punitive damages procedure: There is an additional claim in this case that you must decide. If you find for (claimant) and against (defendant)(s), you must decide whether, in addition to compensatory damages, punitive damages are warranted as punishment to [one or more of] (defendant)(s) and as a deterrent to others. The trial of the punitive damages issue is divided into two parts. In this first part, you will decide whether the conduct of (defendant(s) or individual(s) whose conduct may warrant punitive damages) is such that punitive damages are warranted. If you decide that punitive damages are warranted, we will proceed to the second part of that issue during which the parties may present additional evidence and argument on the issue of punitive damages. I will then give you additional instructions, after which you will decide whether, in your discretion, punitive damages will be assessed and, if so, the amount. b(1). Punitive damages for acts of an individual defendant: (Claimant) claims that punitive damages should be awarded against (defendant) for [his] [her] [its] conduct in (describe the alleged punitive conduct). Punitive damages are warranted against (defendant) if you find by clear and convincing evidence that (defendant) was guilty of intentional misconduct or gross negligence, which was a substantial cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant). Under those circumstances you may, in your discretion, award punitive damages against (defendant). If clear and convincing evidence does not show such conduct by (defendant), punitive damages are not warranted against (defendant). "Intentional misconduct" means that (defendant) had actual knowledge of the wrongfulness of the conduct and there was a high probability of injury or damage to (claimant) and, despite that knowledge, [he] [she] intentionally pursued that course of conduct, resulting in injury or damage. "Gross negligence" means that (defendant)'s conduct was so reckless or wanting in care that it constituted a conscious disregard or indifference to the life, safety, or rights of persons exposed to such conduct. "Clear and convincing evidence" differs from the "greater weight of the evidence" in that it is more compelling and persuasive. As I have already instructed you, "greater weight of the evidence" means the more persuasive and convincing force and effect of the entire evidence in the case. b(2). Direct liability for acts of managing agent, primary owner, or certain others: (Claimant) claims that punitive damages should be awarded against (defendant) for the acts of (managing agent, primary owner, or other person whose conduct may warrant punitive damages without proof of a superior's fault) in (describe the alleged punitive conduct). Punitive damages are warranted against (defendant) if you find by clear and convincing evidence that (managing agent, primary owner, or other person whose conduct may warrant punitive damages without proof of a superior's fault) [was] [were] personally guilty of intentional misconduct or gross negligence which was a substantial cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant). Under those circumstances you may, in your discretion, award punitive damages against (defendant corporation or partnership). If clear and convincing evidence does not show such conduct by (managing agent, primary owner, or other person whose conduct may warrant punitive damages without proof of a superior's fault), punitive damages are not warranted against (defendant). ["Intentional misconduct" means that (person whose conduct may warrant punitive damages) had actual knowledge of the wrongfulness of the conduct and there was a high probability of injury or damage to (claimant) and, despite that knowledge, [he] [she] intentionally pursued that course of conduct, resulting in injury or damage. "Gross negligence" means that the conduct of (person whose conduct may warrant punitive damages) was so reckless or wanting in care that it constituted a conscious disregard or indifference to the life, safety, or rights of persons exposed to such conduct.] ["Clear and convincing evidence" differs from the "greater weight of the evidence" in that it is more compelling and persuasive. As I have already instructed you, "greater weight of the evidence" means the more persuasive and convincing force and effect of the entire evidence in the case.] b(3). Vicarious liability for acts of employee: (Claimant) claims that punitive damages should be awarded against (employee/agent) and (defendant employer) for (employee/agent)'s conduct in (describe the alleged punitive conduct). Punitive damages are warranted against (employee/agent) if you find by clear and convincing evidence that (employee/agent) was personally guilty of intentional misconduct or gross negligence, which was a substantial cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant). Under those circumstances you may, in your discretion, award punitive damages against (employee/agent). If clear and convincing evidence does not show such conduct by (employee/agent), punitive damages are not warranted against either (employee/agent) or (defendant employer). If you find that punitive damages are warranted against (employee/agent) you may also, in your discretion, award punitive damages against (defendant employer) if you find from clear and convincing evidence that: (A). (defendant employer) actively and knowingly participated in such conduct of (employee/agent); or (B). the [officers] [directors] [or] [managers] of (defendant employer) knowingly condoned, ratified, or consented to such conduct of (employee/agent); or (C). (defendant employer) engaged in conduct that constituted gross negligence and that contributed to the [loss] [damage] [or] [injury] to (claimant). If clear and convincing evidence does not show such conduct by (defendant employer) punitive damages are not warranted against (defendant employer). ["Intentional misconduct" means that (person whose conduct may warrant punitive damages) had actual knowledge of the wrongfulness of the conduct and there was a high probability of injury or damage to (claimant) and, despite that knowledge, [he] [she] intentionally pursued that course of conduct, resulting in injury or damage. "Gross negligence" means that the conduct of (person whose conduct may warrant punitive damages) was so reckless or wanting in care that it constitu