The plaintiffs brought suit for the wrongful death of their infant son and the mother's emotion distress resulting from the death of the child. The child died when the seat back in a Chrysler Caravan broke, in a rear-end impact, and the head of an adult occupant collided with the head of the child sitting behind the adult. After a jury verdict that included a $98 million punitive damages award against Chrysler, the case made it's way to the Tennessee Supreme Court. By that time the verdict had been whittled down, leaving only the $5 million wrongful death award, one-half of which was apportioned to Chrysler and the other half against the driver that caused the collision. The entire punitive award and the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim were thrown out by the Court of Appeals.
The Tennessee Supreme Court held that filing a wrongful death suit did not prevent the mother from filing a separate "stand alone" negligent infliction of emotional distress claim. However, a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim brought under those circumstances must be supported by expert medical or scientific proof of a severe emotional injury in accordance with Camper v. Minor, 915 S.W.2d 437 (Tenn. 1996). The bottom line is that when the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim arises from the plaintiff witnessing the death or injury of another, as opposed to the emotional distress arising from the plaintiff's own physical injuries, the plaintiff absolutely needs expert proof of the emotional injury.
In a lengthy analysis of the law applicable to punitive damages claims, and the review of such awards, the court affirmed the punitive damages award of $13 million associated with the wrongful death of the infant. This was the amount the award had been reduced to by the trial judge. The court did address Chrysler's due process challenges and the issue of the ratio of the compensatory award to the punitive award. In Flax the ratio was 1 to 5.35, which exceeded the 1 to 4 ratio which the U.S. Supreme Court has indicated approaches the outer limit of constitutionality. The portion of the punitive award applicable to the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim did not stand since the underlying claim was dismissed. If you have a case that has a punitive damages claim you need to read this opinion. It is the most significant Tennessee decision since Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co.
The Court also held that the trial court erred in recognizing the plaintiffs' "post-sale failure to warn" claim. The court did not consider the merits of recognizing "post-sale failure to warn" in Tennessee on the basis that the proof did not support such a claim. However, the court deemed the trial court's error harmless.
Below are links to the various opinions:
The opinion of the court, by Justice Holder, in which Chief Justice Barker joined.
Justice Wade's separate concurring opinion.
Justice Clark's separate concurring and dissenting opinion, concurring on all issues except that Justice Clark would reverse the judgment awarding punitive damages for the wrongful death claim and remand the case for a new trial on that issue.
Justice Koch's separate concurring and dissenting opinion, arguing that the judgment should be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial on the issue of compensatory damages only.
Dan Berexa
Nashville, Tennessee
Comments