Question

The Acme Blasting Company has the worst safety record in the blasting business. It takes no steps to clear the blasting area, in direct violation of state laws and industry practice. As a result, Brennan, who is walking down the street near an Acme blast site, is seriously injured. The jurisdiction in which the accident took place imposes strict liability for personal injuries occurring through blasting. Assume Brennan succeeds in proving his prima facie case against Acme for injuries as the result of blasting. May Brennan also obtain punitive damages?

A: Yes, but only if Acme intended to harm Brennan
B: Yes, even though blasting is a strict liability tort
C: No, unless Acme intended to harm Brennan
D: No, because one need not prove fault to recover damages for blasting in the jurisdiction

Answer 1

Brennan may be able to obtain punitive damages if he can demonstrate that Acme's conduct was egregiously reckless or intentional, as punitive damages in strict liability cases usually require more than just proving the tort occurred.

Step-by-step explanation:

In the context of the situation involving the Acme Blasting Company, if Brennan succeeds in proving that he was injured as a result of Acme's blasting operations which fall under strict liability, the potential for Brennan to obtain punitive damages depends on the jurisdiction's laws regarding punitive damages in strict liability cases. Generally, punitive damages require a showing of actual malice or reckless disregard for others' safety. Simply proving a strict liability tort occurred is typically not enough for punitive damages.

However, if Acme's violations of state laws and industry practices for safety were egregious and showed a complete disregard for the safety of others, like in our Counter Example Situation 3, where a manufacturer knowingly sold defective products, this can be construed as reckless or intentional misconduct, potentially qualifying Brennan for punitive damages.