“Punitive Damages”
Published .
The general concept
Compensatory damages address the plaintiff’s losses. Punitive damages serve a different purpose: they punish especially wrongful conduct and discourage the defendant and others from repeating it. Because punitive damages are imposed for punishment rather than to measure the plaintiff’s loss, many legal systems reserve them for conduct more blameworthy than ordinary negligence or a simple failure to keep a promise.
How Maryland applies it
In most Maryland common-law tort cases, punitive damages require proof of actual malice by clear and convincing evidence. Actual malice generally means conscious, deliberate wrongdoing involving evil or wrongful motive, intent to injure, ill will, or fraud. Negligence—even gross negligence alone—is not enough. Maryland generally requires a compensatory award, at least nominal, on the tort before punitive damages may be awarded; the jury may still decline to award them. A pure breach-of-contract claim ordinarily does not support punitive damages. A related tort claim requires a legally sufficient tort and actual malice; statutes may set different rules. Government defendants face additional limits: the State’s tort waiver excludes punitive damages, and a local government itself may not be liable for them, although its employee may face personal punitive liability. The claim, defendant, and governing statute matter.
Related Maryland Cases and Authorities
Md. Code, State Government § 12-104(b); Courts & Judicial Proceedings §§ 5-302(b), 5-303(c), 5-522(a).; Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Zenobia, 325 Md. 420, 601 A.2d 633 (1992).; Bowden v. Caldor, 350 Md. 4, 710 A.2d 267 (1998).; Darcars Motors of Silver Spring, Inc. v. Borzym, 379 Md. 249, 841 A.2d 828 (2004).