N.J. Stat. » Title 2A — ADMINISTRATION OF CIVIL AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
New Jersey Statutes

N.J. Stat. § 2A:15-5.10 (2026)

Definitions relative to punitive damages awards

✓ laws through the 2025 session (retrieved May 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaN.J. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

2. As used in this act:

"Actual malice" means an intentional wrongdoing in the sense of an evil-minded act.

"Clear and convincing evidence" means that standard of evidence which leaves no serious or substantial doubt about the correctness of the conclusions drawn from the evidence. It is a standard which requires more than a preponderence of evidence, but less than beyond a reasonable doubt, to draw a conclusion.

"Compensatory damages" means damages intended to make good the loss of an injured party, and no more. The term includes general and special damages and does not include nominal, exemplary or punitive damages.

"Defendant" means any party against whom punitive damages are sought.

"Nominal damages" are damages that are not designed to compensate a plaintiff and are less than $500.

"Plaintiff" means any party claiming punitive damages.

"Punitive damages" includes exemplary damages and means damages awarded against a party in a civil action because of aggravating circumstances in order to penalize and to provide additional deterrence against a defendant to discourage similar conduct in the future. Punitive damages do not include compensatory damages or nominal damages.

"Wanton and willful disregard" means a deliberate act or omission with knowledge of a high degree of probability of harm to another and reckless indifference to the consequences of such act or omission.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36 cases (21 in the last 5 years), 2008–2026 · leading case: Hammons, P. v. Ethicon, Inc., 190 A.3d 1248 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hammons, P. v. Ethicon, Inc., 190 A.3d 1248 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018). · cites it 2× “" N.J. Stat. § 2A:15-5.10. The standard of proof is "clear and convincing evidence.”
Carlino, S. v. Ethicon, Inc., 208 A.3d 92 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019). “" N.J. Stat. § 2A:15-5.10. The standard of proof is "clear and convincing evidence.”
David Onyiuke v. Cheap Tickets, 435 F. App'x 137 (3d Cir. 2011). “” N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:15-5.10. Furthermore, wanton and willful disregard is a "deliberate act or omission with knowledge of a high degree of probability of harm to another and reckless indifference to the consequences of such act or omission.”
Patricia Soliman v. the Kushner Companies, Inc, 77 A.3d 1214 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2013). “" N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.10. B Plaintiffs also asserted invasion of privacy claims under N.”
Glynn v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., 951 F. Supp. 2d 695 (D.N.J. 2013). “, and the New Jersey Punitive Damages Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.10, et seq.; and (12) loss of consortium on behalf of Plaintiff Richard Glynn [docket # 1].”
Ladenheim v. Starr Transit Co., 242 F. Supp. 3d 395 (E.D. Pa. 2017). “2d 243, 254 (1999) (quotation omitted); N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:15-5.10 (defining wanton and willful disregard).”
Prof'l Cleaning & Innovative Bldg. Servs., Inc. v. Kennedy Funding Inc., 408 F. App'x 566 (3d Cir. 2010). “” N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:15-5.10. As the District Court correctly concluded, Professional is not entitled to punitive damages because it cannot meet its burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that Kennedy acted with the requisite culpability.”
Miriam Rivera v. The Valley Hosp., Inc. (085992/085993/085994) (Bergen Cnty. & Statewide), 280 A.3d 299 (N.J. 2022). · cites it 5× “” N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.10. “Wanton and willful disregard” is defined as “a deliberate act or omission with knowledge of a high degree of probability of harm to another and reckless indifference to the consequences of such act or omission.”
Miriam Rivera v. The Valley Hosp., Inc. (085992/085993/085994) (Bergen Cnty. & Statewide), 280 A.3d 299 (N.J. 2022). · cites it 5× “” N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.10. “Wanton and willful disregard” is defined as “a deliberate act or omission with knowledge of a high degree of probability of harm to another and reckless indifference to the consequences of such act or omission.”
Devi Rajshri Sethumadhava Menon v. Ward Corbett & Catalyst Partners Mgmt. LLC, No. 2:21-cv-08384 (D.N.J. Dec. 30, 2025). · cites it 4× “N.J.S.A. § 2A:15-5.10 (punitive damages are appropriate when a defendant commits “a deliberate act or omission with knowledge of a high degree of probability of harm to another and reckless indifference to the consequences 4 As this case arises under the Court’s diversity…”
Sandra Cignarella Vs. Fitness Int'l, LLC (l-11747-14, Middlesex Cnty. & Statewide), No. A-5190-17T4 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Jan. 10, 2020). · cites it 3× “48, 58-59 (2013); see also N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.10. More specifically, what is contemplated is a "positive element of conscious wrongdoing.”
Graphnet, Inc. v. Retarus, Inc. (085529) (Hudson Cnty. & Statewide), 250 N.J. 24 (2022). · cites it 3× “” The court reduced Graphnet’s award to $500, in part relying on N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.10, which defines nominal damages as “damages that are not designed to compensate a plaintiff and are less than $500.”
Show all 36 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.