## Facts

- Jeffrey P. Silverman worked as a dealer at a high-stakes baccarat table in an Atlantic City casino.
- Roger King, a patron, placed a large wager on a baccarat hand and, in celebration, intentionally lifted Silverman by the neck and upper chest.
- Silverman had a congenital skeletal abnormality and developed thoracic outlet syndrome after the incident.
- Expert testimony indicated the force used likely would not have injured a person without Silverman’s predisposing condition.
- Silverman sued King seeking compensatory and punitive damages for personal injuries.

## Issues

1. Whether King’s celebratory, intentional physical contact—causing severe injury due largely to the plaintiff’s unusual susceptibility—was sufficiently malicious, wanton, or egregious, and sufficiently foreseeably harmful, to support punitive damages under New Jersey law.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the punitive damages claim.
- The compensatory damages award (about $66,000) remained in place and was not contested on appeal.
- The court held that, although the contact was intentional and inappropriate, it did not meet the heightened culpability required for punitive damages.
- The court further held that the severe injury was not a reasonably apparent or highly probable result of the conduct when judged against the expected vulnerability of an ordinary person.

## Legal Principles

- Punitive damages require proof of actual malice or wanton and willful disregard of others’ rights and safety; ordinary intentional tort liability does not, by itself, satisfy that standard.
- Punitive damages are reserved for conduct that is outrageous or shows reckless indifference to a high probability of harm.
- Foreseeability plays a distinct role in punitive damages: the conduct must present an obvious or highly probable risk of harm to a reasonable person, not merely cause unexpected harm to an unusually susceptible plaintiff.
- The rule imposing compensatory liability for all harm caused to a “thin skull” plaintiff does not automatically justify punitive damages when the defendant did not consciously disregard an apparent serious risk.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal of punitive damages because King’s celebratory lifting of the dealer lacked malice or willful disregard and did not present a reasonably apparent high probability of serious injury to an ordinarily healthy person, even though the act caused severe harm due to the plaintiff’s preexisting vulnerability.


Silverman v. King, 247 N.J. Super. 534 (App. Div. 1991)