Fernandes v. Singh, 224 Cal. Rptr. 3d 751 (2017)

Citation: Fernandes v. Singh, 224 Cal. Rptr. 3d 751 (2017)
Parent Document: Fernandes v. Singh, 224 Cal. Rptr. 3d 751 (2017)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2017-10-05
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6239155/fernandes-v-singh/ ↗

Full Text

1,233 chars

We also reject Rawat's claim that her conduct was insufficiently reprehensible to merit an award of punitive damages. First, she does not state any facts about reprehensibility, far less state them in favor of the judgment, and therefore forfeits the claim. ( Foreman , supra , 3 Cal.3d at p. 881, 92 Cal.Rptr. 162, 479 P.2d 362.) Second, the trial court detailed a vicious and premeditated course of conduct that meets the standard for punitive damages. "Of the three guideposts that the [United States Supreme Court] court outlined [to establish the propriety of an award of punitive damages], the most important is the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct. On this question, the high court instructed courts to consider whether '[1] the harm caused was physical as opposed to economic; [2] the tortious conduct evinced an indifference to or a reckless disregard of the health or safety of others; [3] the target of the conduct had financial vulnerability; [4] the conduct involved repeated actions or was an isolated incident; and [5] the harm was the result of intentional malice, trickery, or deceit, or mere accident.' " ( Roby v. McKesson Corp . (2009) 47 Cal.4th 686, 713, 101 Cal.Rptr.3d 773, 219 P.3d 749.)

Other Sections in This Document (61)

Full Text