66.771 Extraterritoriality

66.771 Extraterritoriality (Note: This is a limiting charge where the jury has heard evidence in Phase I from other states.) You may have heard evidence of conduct and procedures of the defendant in other states that you may properly consider on the issue of intent and reprehensibility. You may not, however, consider for the issue of punitive damages any conduct that was lawful where and when it occurred, nor in other states even though unlawful and which had no impact on (the victim) (Georgia and its residents) (State Farm seems to suggest that the safer approach is to use the word "victim." However, it cites with approval broader language from BMW v. Gore that includes impact on the trial state's residents. If the parties do not agree in the case on trial, the judge will have to choose.) (Note: Give the following balancing charge only if there is evidence that conduct outside the state contributed to the harm in this case.) Continued--unless such conduct in the other state was (related to the specific harm suffered by the plaintiff in this case. BMW v. Gore, 517 US 559 (1996)