As to the latter point, the Ninth Circuit noted that while, according to the jury, a "reasonable manufacturer" would have known that prolonged TASER deployment could cause cardiac arrest (as it did in this case), the jury here found that TASER did not actually know of that risk. Therefore, although TASER’s efforts to warn customers about the risks posed by prolonged TASER deployment may have been insufficient, its conduct ammounted, at most, to negligence. Because the conduct did not rise to the level of "conscious and deliberate disregard of the interests of others," the evidence simply did not support an award of punitive damages. See: Heston v. TASER International, Case No. 09-15327, (9th Cir. 2011).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Heston v. TASER International
|Cite||Case No. 09-15327, (9th Cir. 2011)|
|Level||Court of Appeals|