Ark. Code Ann. » Title 16 Chapter 55
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 16-55-206 (2026)

Standards for award of punitive damages

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In order to recover punitive damages from a defendant, a plaintiff has the burden of proving that the defendant is liable for compensatory damages and that either or both of the following aggravating factors were present and related to the injury for which compensatory damages were awarded:

  1. The defendant knew or ought to have known, in light of the surrounding circumstances, that his or her conduct would naturally and probably result in injury or damage and that he or she continued the conduct with malice or in reckless disregard of the consequences, from which malice may be inferred; or
  2. The defendant intentionally pursued a course of conduct for the purpose of causing injury or damage.

History. Acts 2003, No. 649, § 9.

Research References

ALR.

Exemplary or punitive damages for pharmacist's wrongful conduct in preparing or dispensing medical prescription — Cases not under Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 2072). 109 A.L.R.5th 397.

Allowance of Punitive Damages in Motor Vehicles Products Liability Cases, 17 A.L.R.7th Art. 4 (2018).

Case Notes

Conduct Not Warranting Punitive Damages.

Where plaintiff retailer sued defendant supplier on claims of fraud and deceptive trade practices in connection with the supplier's refusal to honor its rebate program for the retailer's customers, and the claims requiring any knowing or intentional wrongful act failed, and no reasonable jury could find that the supplier acted with malice or an intent to harm the retailer, the retailer was not entitled to pursue punitive damages under this section, especially since the standard under this section had to be met by clear and convincing evidence as required by § 16-55-207. Curtis Lumber Co. v. La. Pac. Corp., 618 F.3d 762 (8th Cir. 2010).

In this action for negligent hiring, training, supervision or monitoring, and retention, defendants were granted summary judgment on plaintiffs' claims for punitive damages because plaintiffs had not provided evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to find that defendants knew or ought to have known that their conduct would naturally and probably result in injury or damage to the victim. Perry v. Stevens Transp., Inc., No. 3:11CV00048 JLH, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94942 (E.D. Ark. July 9, 2012).

Alleged violations of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations did not support a punitive-damages award, because there was no evidence that the driver had been drinking alcohol or using controlled substances prior to the accident or that he was or appeared to be under the influence of alcohol or any controlled substances at the time of the accident. Brumley v. Keech, 2012 Ark. 263 (2012).

In an action regarding equipment supplied by defendant to plaintiff to heat-treat pipe, because plaintiff asserted punitive damages only on its gross negligence claim, and could not show gross negligence because defendant sincerely and consistently attempted to fix the defective equipment, the punitive damages claim was dismissed under this section. IPSCO Tubulars, Inc. v. Ajax TOCCO Magnathermic Corp., 779 F.3d 744 (8th Cir. 2015).

Relevant Evidence.

In a negligence case, a trial court erred by granting a motion in limine and excluding evidence of prior driving while intoxicated offenses because they were relevant under Ark. R. Evid. 401 to the determination of whether punitive damages under this section were warranted. Yeakley v. Doss, 370 Ark. 122, 257 S.W.3d 895 (2007).

Defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on punitive damages because a reasonable juror could find that defendant property owner, acting on behalf of defendant entities, knew or had reason to know that proceeding with excavation of the hillside without a recommended retaining wall in place would inflict injury to plaintiff's property, but he proceeded with excavation with conscious indifference to the consequences, from which malice may be inferred. Rivercliff Co. v. Residences at Riverdale GP, LLC, No. 4:10CV00330 SWW, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139158 (E.D. Ark. Dec. 2, 2011).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 2007–2026 · leading case: Curtis Lumber Co., Inc. v. Louisiana Pac. Corp., 618 F.3d 762 (8th Cir. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Curtis Lumber Co., Inc. v. Louisiana Pac. Corp., 618 F.3d 762 (8th Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “Ark.Code § 16-55-206. Moreover, plaintiffs are required to satisfy the above standard by clear and convincing evidence.”
Yeakley v. Doss, 257 S.W.3d 895 (Ark. 2007). · cites it 4× “The standard for awarding punitive damages is set forth in Ark.Code Ann. § 16-55-206 (Repl.2005), which provides in relevant part: In order to recover punitive damages from a defendant, a plaintiff has the burden of proving that the defendant is liable for compensatory damages…”
Bayer CropScience LP v. Schafer, 385 S.W.3d 822 (Ark. 2011). · cites it 2× “At the conclusion of the rice farmers’ case, Bayer moved both orally and in writing for directed verdict on the issue of punitive damages, arguing that the rice farmers had presented insufficient evidence to support a punitive-damage award under Arkansas Code Annotated section…”
Carr v. Nance, 370 S.W.3d 826 (Ark. 2010). · cites it 2× “Appellees also note that this interpretation of malice is the same as that used in Ark. Code Ann. § 16-55-206 , which explains the standard for an award of punitive damages under the Civil Justice Reform Act.”
Clear Sky Props. LLC v. Roussel (In re Roussel), 504 B.R. 510 (E.D. Ark. 2013). · cites it 2× “The state court also instructed the jury regarding punitive damages, according to *516 the standard set forth under Ark.Code Ann. § 16-55-206 and Arkansas Model Jury Instruction 2218, stating as follows: In addition to compensatory damages for any actual loss that [Clear Sky and…”
Quadrangle Enter., Inc. v. Harper (In Re Harper), 378 B.R. 836 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2007). · cites it 2× “Finally, AMI 2218, and Ark.Code Ann. §§ 16-55-206, -207 were recited on the standard for punitive damages, which again was not objected to by any of the Defendants: IN ADDITION TO COMPENSATORY DAMAGES FOR ANY ACTUAL LOSS THAT PLAINTIFF QUADRANGLE MAY HAVE SUSTAINED, QUADRANGLE…”
Thomas v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC, 362 F. Supp. 3d 610 (E.D. Ark. 2018). · cites it 2× “The motion is denied because Thomas presented some evidence evincing that defendants were aware that the asbestos fibers in their brakes were harmful but that defendants continued to distribute those brakes anyway.”
Richard Alexander v. Tutle & Tutle Trucking, 834 F.3d 866 (8th Cir. 2016). “Ark. Code Ann. § 16-55-206 . On competing motions for summary judgment, the district court concluded that the Motor Carrier Act exemption applied to the drivers, because there was a reasonable expectation that the drivers would travel in interstate commerce, and such activity…”
Nosler v. Quick & Assocs. (E.D. Ark. 2020). · cites it 4× “Plaintiffs maintain that they “suffered harm as a result of the Defendants’ conduct as outlined in Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-55-206,” and further accuse defendants of “fail[ing] to adhere to the standards outlined in Arkansas Code Annotated 17-12-302, 308, 311 and 402 .”
Stallworth (E.D. Ark. 2026). · cites it 4× “Ark. Code Ann. § 16-55-206 (West). Punitive damages may be awarded only when the evidence is “clear and convincing.”
Advocacy Trust, LLC v. Kia Corp. (W.D. Ark. 2023). · cites it 3× “Ark. Code Ann. § 16-55-206 . Advocacy Trust must prove this by clear and convincing evidence.”
Richard Mays, Jr.; Mays, Byrd & Assocs., P.A.; Derrick Stephens; D. Stephens Mgmt. & Consulting, LLC; & Olena \lola\" Korneevets v. Viva La Vegan Grocery, 2024 Ark. App. 513 (2024). “Ark. Code Ann. § 16-55-206 (Supp. 2023). When receiving an award for punitive damages, the court considers the extent and enormity of the wrong, the intent of the party committing the wrong, all of the circumstances, and the financial and social condition and standing of the…”
Show all 26 citing cases →
— Ark. Code Ann. § 16-55-206(1) — 1 case
Call (E.D. Ark. 2025).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.