In our recent post describing Salvio v. Amgen Inc., 2012 WL 517446 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 15, 2012), we mentioned the standard for punitive damages that the court applied – “punitive damages are unfounded where a manufacturer-defendant warns of the potential danger that resulted in injury to a plaintiff.”  2012 WL 517446, at *8.  Under this view, even if the warning is inadequate in some way, the fact that the defendant gave some warning about the risk defeated the “conscious indifference” (or worse) mental state required for punitive damages:

“[E]ven if Plaintiff could show that “[m]ore could have been done or said,” the Defendants did not display indifference toward the public’s safety and therefore punitive damages are not warranted. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages will be GRANTED.

Id.  The court observed that “Pennsylvania courts have not addressed this issue,” id., and thus relied on several federal court of appeals decisions.

We think the principle is an interesting one, so we’ve decided to examine it in more depth.  One thing we found was that Salvio had overlooked prior Pennsylvania decisions that made more or less the same rulings.  One such decision is Richetta v. Stanley Fastening Systems, L.P., 661 F. Supp.2d 500 (E.D. Pa. 2009), which involved a nail gun, not a prescription medical product.  Like Salvio, Richetta held that the defendant’s efforts to warn precluded the mental state necessary for punitive damages.

Please see full article below for more information.