Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Molenaar v. United Cattle Co., 553 N.W.2d 424 (1996)

Citation
Molenaar v. United Cattle Co., 553 N.W.2d 424 (1996)
Parent Document
Molenaar v. United Cattle Co., 553 N.W.2d 424 (1996)
Jurisdiction
Minnesota (state)
Effective Date
1996-07-30

Other Sections in This Document (93)

Full Text

821 chars
The body of the supreme court's opinion in Keene indicates that a plaintiff's right to recover punitive damages absent personal injury is not affected by the plaintiff's theory of liability. Id. at 732. If the theory of liability does not affect the right to recover punitive damages, I see no reason why the fact that a plaintiff is injured by a product, rather than in some other manner, should affect the right to recover punitive damages. Punitive damages are intended to punish particularly egregious conduct of the defendant. Rosenbloom v. Flygare, 501 N.W.2d 597, 602 (Minn.1993). There is no apparent reason why particularly egregious conduct involving a product should lead to any less serious consequences than egregious conduct that does not involve a product. Furthermore, in Eisert, the supreme court stated: