## Facts

- Michael James Day purchased a new .41 magnum single-action revolver manufactured by Sturm, Ruger & Co. in 1970.
- While seated in a pickup truck, Day attempted to unload the revolver; it slipped, and as he grabbed for it the gun discharged and seriously injured his leg.
- The revolver’s hammer had multiple notch positions; the manufacturer warned the revolver could fire from the safety or loading notch with an excessive trigger pull and that such notches provided only partial security.
- Day contended the hammer was in the loading notch and that, during the attempt to catch the falling gun, inadvertent manipulation caused the hammer to come off the notch and fire.
- Evidence indicated the manufacturer knew of an accidental-discharge risk in this revolver line, knew of other serious injuries, and could correct the design for about $1.93 per revolver but did not promptly implement a fix.

## Issues

1. Whether punitive damages are available in Alaska products-liability actions and whether such damages are unconstitutional or barred by public policy.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to submit punitive damages to the jury under an “outrageous” or “reckless indifference” standard.
3. Whether the jury’s punitive damages award was excessive, requiring remittitur or a new trial limited to punitive damages.
4. Whether the evidence and trial rulings supported strict liability findings for defective design and manufacturing defect.

## Decision

- The court held punitive damages are available in Alaska products-liability cases and are not categorically unconstitutional or barred by public policy.
- The court held there was sufficient evidence of corporate knowledge and inaction to permit punitive damages and to sustain some punitive award.
- The court held the specific punitive award was excessive and ordered remittitur as a condition of affirmance, with a remand for the plaintiff to accept the reduced amount or proceed to a new trial limited to punitive damages.
- The court affirmed liability and the compensatory damages award.

## Legal Principles

- Punitive damages may be awarded when the defendant’s conduct is outrageous, including conduct showing malice, bad motives, or reckless indifference to the interests and safety of others.
- Due process permits punitive damages where the defendant has notice that such damages may be imposed, the jury is properly instructed on the governing standard, and courts provide post-verdict review to prevent grossly disproportionate awards.
- Appellate and trial courts may use remittitur to control excessive punitive awards and to ensure a reasonable relationship between punishment/deterrence and the gravity of the misconduct.
- In strict products liability, a manufacturer is liable for injury caused by a product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer; liability may rest on defective design and manufacturing defect without proof of negligence.
- Evidence of a manufacturer’s knowledge of a safety defect, knowledge of prior injuries, and failure to implement an economically feasible safety change may support a finding of reckless indifference justifying punitive damages.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed strict-liability findings and compensatory damages for injuries caused by a defective revolver, held that punitive damages are permissible when supported by reckless indifference, and required reduction of an excessive punitive award through remittitur or a new punitive-damages trial.


Sturm, Ruger & Co. v. Day, 594 P.2d 38 (Alaska 1979)