## Facts

- A July 1, 1975 collision involved a 1967 Ford Mustang driven by Robin DuVall, which was rear-ended while stopped to turn left, pushed into oncoming traffic, and struck another vehicle.
- The Mustang’s fuel tank ruptured and ignited, causing severe burns; Christopher DuVall and Kip Wangen died.
- Plaintiffs alleged the Mustang’s fuel system was defectively designed and placed in a vulnerable location.
- Plaintiffs further alleged Ford knew of the defect and burn risks from rear-end collisions but did not correct or disclose the danger, allegedly to avoid recall cost and negative publicity.
- Plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages under negligence and strict products liability theories.

## Issues

1. Whether punitive damages are recoverable in Wisconsin products-liability actions based on negligence or strict liability in tort.
2. Whether Wisconsin’s punitive-damages standard (outrageous conduct showing evil intent or wanton, willful, or reckless disregard of others’ rights) can apply in product-defect litigation, including strict liability.
3. Whether the complaints alleged facts which, if proven, could support punitive damages, making dismissal at the pleading stage improper.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Ford’s motion to dismiss the punitive-damages claims.
- The court held punitive damages may be awarded in products-liability suits predicated on negligence or strict liability when the defendant’s conduct satisfies Wisconsin’s punitive-damages standard.
- The court concluded the complaints alleged conduct that, if proven, could meet the standard for punitive damages, so the claims could proceed beyond the pleadings.

## Legal Principles

- Punitive damages in Wisconsin are a form of damages, not an independent cause of action, awarded in addition to compensatory damages to punish and deter egregious misconduct.
- The governing standard permits punitive damages when the defendant’s conduct is outrageous, reflects evil intent, or demonstrates wanton, willful, or reckless disregard of the rights of others.
- Products-liability status does not categorically bar punitive damages; the availability of punitive damages turns on the defendant’s culpable conduct, not the liability theory alone.
- Although strict liability focuses on the product’s condition rather than fault, the defendant’s knowledge and decision-making may be examined to determine punitive damages.
- Policy objections to punitive damages in product cases (deterrence, economic effects, multiple punishment, and windfalls) do not justify an across-the-board prohibition; such concerns may be addressed through trial-level controls and judicial review of amounts.

## Conclusion

Punitive damages are available in Wisconsin products-liability actions based on negligence or strict liability when the plaintiff can prove conduct that is outrageous or in wanton, willful, or reckless disregard of others’ rights, and allegations of knowing marketing of a dangerous design are sufficient to survive dismissal at the pleading stage.


Wangen v. Ford Motor Co., 97 Wis. 2d 260, 294 N.W.2d 437 (Wis. 1980)