Which statement about punitive damages is true?

• A. They are never used in civil rights cases.
• B. They require the plaintiff to prove only negligence.
• C. They are damages intended to punish and deter misconduct, and officers can be held personally liable.
• D. They are always capped by state law.

Answer: (C)

Punitive damages are meant to punish the worst misconduct and to deter similar future behavior, not just to compensate the victim. Because of that purpose, they require proving conduct that goes beyond mere negligence—typically showing malice, oppression, fraud, or reckless disregard for rights.

In the context of law enforcement, this higher standard means an officer can be personally liable for punitive damages if their actions meet that threshold. The focus is on the officer’s intent or extreme disregard for others’ rights, which can lead to successful punitive-damages claims against the individual officer, not only against the department.

The other statements don’t fit: punitive damages aren’t unavailable in civil rights cases simply because of their nature; they’re not awarded for negligence alone; and while some states place caps on punitive damages, not all jurisdictions do, so they aren’t “always capped.”