Nissan Motor Co. v. Maddox, 486 S.W.3d 838

On June 6, 2009 Amanda Maddox (passenger) was severely injured in a head-on crash caused by a drunk driver; she underwent 75 surgeries and prolonged hospitalization.
Amanda sued the drunk driver’s estate and Nissan for defective restraint-system design and failure to warn, alleging the Pathfinder’s load limiter and seat/seatbelt design caused "submarining" and catastrophic abdominal injuries.
At trial experts testified that the 2001 Pathfinder used load limiters and free-sliding latch plates that allowed excessive belt spool-out for heavier occupants; alternative designs existed and Nissan disposed of developmental test reports per its retention policy.
Nissan had passed federal FMVSS testing and voluntary NCAP 5‑star frontal crash testing (using 171 lb dummies and belted tests); Nissan argued compliance weighed against punitive liability.
A jury apportioned fault (80% to the drunk driver, 70% to Nissan), awarded ~$2.6M compensatory and $2.5M punitive damages; trial and Court of Appeals rulings denied Nissan’s directed verdict/JNOV requests on punitive damages.
The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed only the punitive damages portion, holding the evidence was insufficient to support a punitive-damages instruction and vacated the punitive award.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supported a punitive-damages instruction (i.e., gross negligence/wanton or reckless disregard) against Nissan	Whitman and other evidence showed Nissan designed the load limiter to achieve NCAP ratings at the expense of larger occupants, failed to warn, and destroyed testing records — supporting reckless/wanton conduct	Nissan complied with FMVSS and voluntarily exceeded them (NCAP 5‑star); compliance and additional testing show at least slight care; no evidence it knew tests were invalid or that it knowingly distributed a dangerous product	Reversed: punitive instruction was inappropriate — evidence did not establish gross negligence or reckless/wanton conduct by clear and convincing evidence; punitive award vacated

Osborne v. Keeney, 399 S.W.3d 1 (Ky. 2012) (standard for reviewing directed-verdict/JNOV and verdict against the evidence)
Gibson v. Fuel Transport, Inc., 410 S.W.3d 56 (Ky. 2013) (punitive damages require negligence plus wanton or reckless disregard)
Phelps v. Louisville Water Co., 103 S.W.3d 46 (Ky. 2003) (definition of gross negligence as wanton or reckless disregard)
Sufix, U.S.A., Inc. v. Cook, 128 S.W.3d 838 (Ky. Ct. App. 2004) (punitive damages appropriate where manufacturer failed to document testing and ignored notice of defects)
University Medical Center, Inc. v. Beglin, 375 S.W.3d 783 (Ky. 2011) (limits on drawing adverse inferences from destruction/loss of evidence)
BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (U.S. 1996) (framework on when punitive awards are grossly excessive under Due Process)