Appeals Court Reverses Punitive Damages Award, Finds Late Trial Amendment to Add Recklessness Prejudiced Defense

This case concerned an elderly woman’s slip and fall on a shower floor while being assisted by staff in an elder care facility. The plaintiff filed suit for negligence only. At trial, two witnesses for the defendant admitted their conduct was reckless. The trial court permitted the plaintiff to amend her complaint at trial to aver reckless conduct and seek punitive damages, which were later awarded. 

The Superior Court reversed, focusing on the surprise to the defense caused by the amendment since theories of recklessness had never been pursued during discovery, noting, “the failure to develop the specific theory of recovery during discovery [recklessness] was not, in this case, a mere technicality subject to being cured by amendment at any point. Rather, the case the appellee developed at trial was substantively different from the theory she developed during discovery and alleged in her complaint. . . it was an introduction of a new theory of recovery at the latest date.” 

This case provides good grounds for defense counsel to oppose amendments at trial that seek to add claims of recklessness where no indicia of recklessness were previously developed. 

_{Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}