## Facts

- Eulis S. Dykes worked as a plasterer and was exposed over many years to asbestos-containing products made or supplied by multiple manufacturers.
- Dykes developed mesothelioma, an asbestos-related cancer, and he and his wife, Helen K. Dykes, sued sixteen asbestos-product manufacturers in federal court under diversity jurisdiction.
- Before trial, all defendants except National Gypsum Company settled for a total of $503,725.
- The case proceeded to trial only against National Gypsum; the jury awarded $300,000 compensatory damages and $200,000 punitive damages.
- Applying Tennessee’s Contribution Among Tort-Feasors Act, the district court set off the full $300,000 compensatory award against the prior settlements, reducing compensatory damages against National Gypsum to $0.
- The district court left the $200,000 punitive award intact, reasoning that contribution principles do not apply when the defendant’s conduct is “willful and wanton.”
- National Gypsum appealed, challenging (i) the contribution ruling as to punitive damages, (ii) admission of evidence of post-exposure corporate conduct, (iii) admission of a prior deposition of Dr. Kenneth Wallace Smith (a medical director for Johns-Manville) and an exhibit labeled “For punitive damages only,” and (iv) a proposed “overkill doctrine” barring punitive damages in asbestos litigation.

## Issues

1. Whether Tennessee’s Contribution Among Tort-Feasors Act applies to punitive damages, and whether “willful and wanton” conduct removes punitive damages from the statute’s scope.
2. Whether evidence of National Gypsum’s conduct after the plaintiff’s last asbestos exposure and the deposition testimony of Dr. Kenneth Wallace Smith were admissible on punitive damages.
3. Whether sending an exhibit marked “For punitive damages only” to the jury was unduly prejudicial.
4. Whether Tennessee law recognizes an “overkill doctrine” that would bar punitive damages in asbestos cases due to repetitive punishment across many suits.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit held the district court erred by treating punitive damages as categorically outside Tennessee’s contribution statute based solely on “willful and wanton” conduct.
- The court concluded the statute may apply to punitive damages, with any exclusion limited to truly intentional wrongdoing rather than nonintentional aggravated misconduct.
- The court found the evidentiary record sufficient to support submitting punitive damages to the jury and upheld the punitive award on the merits.
- The court affirmed the admission of evidence of post-exposure corporate conduct as relevant to the defendant’s knowledge and state of mind for punitive damages.
- The court found no reversible error in admitting Dr. Smith’s prior deposition testimony and no reversible prejudice from the jury’s receipt of an exhibit labeled “For punitive damages only.”
- The court rejected the asserted “overkill doctrine,” declining to create a Tennessee-law bar on punitive damages in asbestos litigation absent clear state authority.

## Legal Principles

- Under Tennessee’s Contribution Among Tort-Feasors Act, contribution is not automatically unavailable merely because the defendant’s conduct is characterized as “willful and wanton”; any statutory exclusion for punitive damages is tied to intentional torts.
- Punitive damages may be supported by evidence bearing on a defendant’s knowledge, attitude, and reckless disregard, including conduct occurring after the plaintiff’s last exposure when offered to show state of mind.
- Admission of prior deposition testimony from other litigation may be upheld where the requirements for former testimony are satisfied and the opponent does not demonstrate reversible prejudice.
- A limiting-purpose label on an exhibit (e.g., “For punitive damages only”) is not necessarily prejudicial and can clarify the permissible use of the evidence.
- Federal courts applying state law will not adopt broad new limits on punitive damages (such as an “overkill doctrine”) without clear direction from the state’s legislature or highest court.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit corrected the district court’s categorical view that punitive damages fall outside Tennessee’s contribution statute for “willful and wanton” conduct, upheld the punitive damages verdict as supported by the evidence, affirmed the key punitive-damages evidentiary rulings, and rejected a proposed Tennessee-law doctrine that would bar punitive damages in asbestos cases based on repetitive punishment concerns.


Dykes v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 801 F.2d 810 (6th Cir. 1986)