## Facts

- Hattie Tuttle was a passenger in a Plymouth that was struck by a Lincoln driven by Ralph Raymond, III, on July 6, 1977.
- The collision caused severe injuries to Tuttle; the impact was strong enough to shear the Plymouth in half.
- The jury could find Raymond was driving at an excessive speed in a 25 m.p.h. zone and ran a red light shortly before the collision.
- Raymond conceded liability for compensatory damages.
- A jury awarded Tuttle $50,000 in compensatory damages and $22,000 in punitive damages.
- Raymond appealed only the punitive damages award.

## Issues

1. Whether Maine should abolish common-law punitive (exemplary) damages.
2. If punitive damages remain available, what conduct standard and burden of proof govern recovery.
3. Whether Raymond’s conduct in this automobile collision satisfied the punitive-damages standard.

## Decision

- The Law Court declined to abolish punitive damages at common law in Maine.
- The Court narrowed punitive damages by requiring proof, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant acted with malice.
- Applying the new standard, the Court held Raymond’s conduct did not justify punitive damages and reversed the punitive award while leaving compensatory damages undisturbed.

## Legal Principles

- Punitive damages remain available in Maine but are confined to punishment and deterrence of especially blameworthy tortious conduct.
- To recover punitive damages, a plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with malice.
- Malice may be express or implied, but it requires culpability beyond recklessness, gross negligence, or dangerous driving alone.
- When the record supports at most reckless or grossly negligent driving without malice, punitive damages are not permitted.

## Conclusion

The Law Court retained punitive damages in Maine but substantially restricted them, holding that punitive awards require clear and convincing proof of express or implied malice and reversing a punitive award based on reckless driving that did not meet that malice standard.


Tuttle v. Raymond, III, 494 A.2d 1353 (Me. 1985)