Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 52 — CIVIL ACTIONS · Chapter 901 — Damages, Costs and Fees
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-240b (2026)

Punitive damages in product liability actions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Punitive damages may be awarded if the claimant proves that the harm suffered was the result of the product seller's reckless disregard for the safety of product users, consumers or others who were injured by the product. If the trier of fact determines that punitive damages should be awarded, the court shall determine the amount of such damages not to exceed an amount equal to twice the damages awarded to the plaintiff.

(P.A. 79-483, S. 8.)

Cited. 187 C. 363; 210 C. 189; 212 C. 509; 221 C. 674; 241 C. 199; 243 C. 168. Punitive damages awarded under this section are not measured by common-law rule, which limits punitive damages to the costs of litigation less taxable costs. 324 C. 402.

Cited. 8 CA 642; 16 CA 558; 43 CA 1. Section permits award of punitive damages in connection with a product liability claim involving damage to property only; punitive damages are awarded when the evidence shows a reckless indifference to the rights of others or an intentional or wanton violation of those rights. 149 CA 839.

Legislative meaning attributed to words “claimant” and “harm”, in Sec. 52-572m(c) and (d) are sufficiently broad to permit an award of punitive damages in connection with a product liability claim involving only damage to property. 39 CS 269. Cited. 42 CS 153.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Secs. 52-241 and 52-242. Municipal courts; costs in contract actions. Costs on appeal from justice or municipal court. Sections 52-241 and 52-242 are repealed.

(1949 Rev., S. 7986, 7987; 1949, S. 3189d; 1959, P.A. 28, S. 204.)

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: Bifolck v. Philip Morris, Inc., 152 A.3d 1183 (Conn. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bifolck v. Philip Morris, Inc., 152 A.3d 1183 (Conn. 2016). · cites it 26× “The plaintiff sought compensatory damages, as well as statutory punitive damages under General Statutes § 52-240b. One count of the complaint asserted a product liability claim under the act, but set forth separate allegations in support of theories of strict liability and…”
Medvalusa Health Programs, Inc. v. Memberworks, Inc., 872 A.2d 423 (Conn. 2005). · cites it 8× “Furthermore, the fact that our legislature has limited punitive damages in product liability cases to twice the amount of compensatory damages awarded; see General Statutes § 52-240b; even though the conduct that forms the basis of the compensatory damage award in such cases…”
Champagne v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 562 A.2d 1100 (Conn. 1989). · cites it 6× “Moreover, while not involved in this case, we note that General Statutes § 52-240b, which concerns punitive damages in product liability actions, provides that punitive damages “may be awarded” if proven under that statute and, if the trier of fact determines that such damages…”
Izzarelli v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 767 F. Supp. 2d 324 (D. Conn. 2010). · cites it 21× “Conn. Gen.Stat. § 52-240b. The trier of fact determines whether the defendant’s conduct rises to the level of reckless disregard and the court sets the amount of punitive damages, which are not to exceed twice the plaintiffs actual damages.”
Berry v. Loiseau, 614 A.2d 414 (Conn. 1992). · cites it 4× “, General Statutes § 52-240b. 1 I concur in the opinion in all other respects.”
Harty v. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., 881 A.2d 139 (Conn. 2005). · cites it 4× “…31-290a; General Statutes § 35-53; General Statutes § 42-110g; General Statutes § 46a-98; General Statutes § 47-278; General Statutes § 52-240b. We further note that, in none of the aforementioned statutes has the legislature fixed the measures of damages as multiples of…”
Ames v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 514 A.2d 352 (Conn. App. Ct. 1986). · cites it 6× “In her substituted complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant acted recklessly in distributing the riding lawnmower when it knew or should have known of the dangers involved in placing the machine into the stream of commerce. At trial, the court instructed the jury to…”
BMW of North Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996). “• Connecticut —Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-240b (1995) (caps punitive damages at twice compensatory damages in products liability cases).”
Walters v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp., 676 F. Supp. 2d 44 (D. Conn. 2009). · cites it 4× “” Conn. Gen.Stat. § 52-240b. Howmedica argues that summary judgment of Walters’ claim for punitive damages is proper because Walters offers no evidence to support the conclusion that Howmedica acted with “reckless disregard.”
Potter v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., 694 A.2d 1319 (Conn. 1997). · cites it 2× “See General Statutes § 52-240b (“[pjunitive damages may be awarded if the claimant proves that the harm suffered was the result of the product seller’s reckless disregard for the safety of product users, consumers or others who were injured by the product”).”
Hoboken Wood Flooring Corp. v. Torrington Supply Co., 606 A.2d 1006 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1991). · cites it 4× “” This is an obvious, if misprinted, reference to General Statutes § 52-240b. The defendant has now moved to strike the second, third, and fourth counts on the ground that they fail to state claims on which relief may be granted.”
Fraser v. Wyeth, Inc., 992 F. Supp. 2d 68 (D. Conn. 2014). · cites it 3× “In a separate post-trial ruling, this Court determined that, contrary to Plaintiffs’ contentions, under Conn. Gen.Stat. § 52-240b, punitive damages were capped at Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses less taxable costs.”
Show all 28 citing cases →
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.