The Assembly Judiciary Committee rejected a very reasonable legal reform measure on Tuesday on a straight party-line vote. Assembly Bill 158, authored by Assemblymember Linda Halderman (R-Fresno), would have created a government standards defense to punitive damages (which, also known as exemplary damages, are designed to punish defendants for reprehensive behavior, as opposed to actual, or compensatory damages, which are designed to make the plaintiffs whole by compensating them for an injury suffered).

AB 158 proposed that in cases where someone is harmed by a product, the manufacturer, distributor, or seller would not be liable for punitive damages if the product was in compliance with the relevant government regulations. For example, if a medicine was deemed safe by the FDA and then later caused an individual harm, the plaintiff would be entitled to actual damages but not punitive damages. This defense would not apply if it was proven that the defendant intentionally withheld or misrepresented information from the relevant government agencies that was related to the harm that resulted.

Seven other states have enacted some form of government standards defense. The proposal was supported by a wide variety of groups, including CJAC, the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Retailers Association, the California Independent Grocers Association, the California Association of Health Facilities, and several more. The committee members unfortunately sided with the opposition, which of course included the Consumer Attorneys Of California.

The broad coalition supporting the bill pointed out that the purpose of punitive damages is to make an example out of certain defendants and to punish them for outrageous conduct. Is adhering in good faith to a standard the government itself deems acceptable really outrageous conduct?

You can see the bill here and the vote here.

Similar Posts:

Share