Nittinger v. Holman

Rose, J., with whom Leavitt and Maupin, JJ.,

agree, concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I join with the majority’s affirmance of the general damages verdict, but I believe that the majority defines the term “managerial agent,” as used in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 909 (1979), too narrowly; and by doing so, it improperly strikes the punitive damages award.

*199The majority correctly references section 909 and its comment, but then declines to follow the general statements therein. Comment b states that a person acting in a managerial capacity can expose the corporation to punitive…