Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Perrine v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.

West Virginia Supreme Court

Decided March 26, 2010No. Nos. 34333, 34334, 34335Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWorkman, Justice

While I am in agreement with the thorough, well-researched, and well-reasoned majority opinion regarding the bulk of the issues resolved, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion regarding the availability of punitive damages in a medical monitoring cause of action. The majority holds that “[pjunitive damages may not be awarded on a cause of action for medical monitoring.” I strongly disagree with this holding as punitive damages should be available in a medical monitoring cause of action, but only when the defendant’s conduct rises to the level of willful, wanton, and egregious conduct…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.California Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Preston v. MurtyOhio Supreme Court · 1987
  3. Ayers v. Township of JacksonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1987
  4. Garnes v. Fleming Landfill, Inc.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1991
  5. Bower v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1999

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API