Law 531 Case Analysis

Coughlin v Tailhook

112 F.3d 1052 (1997)

Facts: Mrs. Coughlin files suit in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against Las Vegas Hilton Corporation, Tailhook Association and Hilton Hotels Corporation alleging that she was attacked by a group of men in a hotel hallway outside several convention-related hospitality suites. This attack caused her to experience post-traumatic stress disorder and other psychological problems. These problems led Mrs. Coughlin to resign from the military and thus she was suing for compensatory and punitive damages. Mrs. Coughlin settled with Tailhook prior to going to trial for $400,000. The jury found LVHC and HHC negligent and Mrs. Coughlin was awarded $1,695,000 in compensatory damages and $4,950,000 in punitive damages. The district judge subsequently reduced the compensatory damages award to $3,885,000. LVHC and HHC appealed the courts ruling contending that Mrs. Coughlin failed to show the requisite “malice in fact” required under Nevada Law to be awarded punitive damages.

Issue: Did the United States District Court of Nevada correctly define malice to award Coughlin punitive damages?

Holding: Yes, in accordance with the ruling of Granite Constr. Co. v. Rhyne, 817 P.2d 711 (Nev. 1991) the Nevada legislature enacted rule 42.001 to define malice for punitive damages. It defines “malice, express or implied” as follows: “conduct which is intended to injure a person or despicable conduct which is engaged in with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of other.” Three justices in the Granite case found that the defendant consciously and deliberately disregarded known safety procedures- procedures designed to keep the public safe from harm. The appeals court concluded that the Granite ruling and subsequent defining of malice reflected the current state of Nevada authority on this issue.

Summary of the Court’s Reasoning: The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the initial ruling in favor...