In Arizona, punitive damages in wrongful death cases are awarded to punish defendants for egregious conduct and deter similar behavior, with amounts determined by the severity of misconduct rather than economic losses. These damages go beyond compensation and serve as a powerful tool for accountability when someone’s death results from extreme negligence or intentional harm.
Wrongful death cases represent some of the most emotionally devastating legal matters families face. Unlike standard wrongful death claims that focus solely on compensating survivors for their financial and emotional losses, punitive damages address a different dimension of justice entirely. They target the defendant’s conduct itself, examining whether their actions were so reckless, malicious, or intentionally harmful that society demands punishment beyond mere compensation. Arizona law treats these damages with particular seriousness, creating strict eligibility requirements and procedural rules that families must navigate carefully.
Understanding Punitive Damages in Wrongful Death Cases
Punitive damages differ fundamentally from compensatory damages by focusing on the defendant’s behavior rather than the victim’s losses. While compensatory damages reimburse families for medical bills, funeral costs, lost income, and emotional suffering, punitive damages exist purely to punish and deter egregious conduct.
Arizona courts do not award punitive damages simply because someone died or because the defendant was careless. The law requires proof that the defendant acted with an “evil mind” or showed conscious disregard for the rights and safety of others. This high standard means families must demonstrate the defendant knew their actions created substantial risk of harm but proceeded anyway with indifference or malicious intent.
Legal Standards for Awarding Punitive Damages Under Arizona Law
Arizona requires specific evidence before juries can consider punitive damages in wrongful death cases. The standard of proof is higher than for compensatory damages, reflecting the punitive nature of these awards. Families must show “clear and convincing evidence” that the defendant’s conduct met statutory requirements under A.R.S. § 12-689.
This burden means presenting compelling documentation, witness testimony, and expert analysis showing the defendant’s state of mind. Evidence might include internal company communications revealing knowledge of dangers, patterns of similar conduct, testimony about the defendant’s awareness of risks, or documentation of warnings the defendant ignored. The family must prove the defendant acted with either intent to harm or conscious disregard for known risks that substantially certain to cause serious harm.
Types of Conduct That May Warrant Punitive Damages
Arizona law recognizes two primary categories of conduct that may justify punitive damages in wrongful death cases. Each category requires different evidence but shares the common element of exceptional wrongdoing that goes beyond simple negligence or mistakes.
Intentional Harm or Malicious Conduct
Intentional harm cases involve defendants who deliberately caused the death or acted with malicious intent. This includes murder, assault resulting in death, or situations where the defendant specifically intended to cause serious harm. The family must prove the defendant had actual intent to injure or kill, not merely that they acted carelessly. Evidence might include statements expressing intent, prior threats, patterns of escalating violence, or actions demonstrating deliberate disregard for human life. These cases often overlap with criminal prosecutions, and criminal convictions can provide compelling evidence in subsequent civil wrongful death claims.
Conscious Disregard for Safety and Known Risks
Conscious disregard cases involve defendants who knew their actions created substantial risks but proceeded anyway with indifference to consequences. This standard applies when companies ignore safety regulations despite knowing violations could cause death, when drivers operate vehicles while severely impaired, or when property owners maintain hazardous conditions after receiving warnings about dangers. The key element is knowledge combined with indifference. The defendant must have actually known about the risk, not merely that they should have known. Evidence might include safety reports the defendant received and ignored, documentation of repeated warnings, internal communications discussing known dangers, or patterns of similar incidents the defendant failed to address.
Who Can Pursue Punitive Damages in Arizona Wrongful Death Claims
Arizona strictly limits who may file wrongful death claims and seek punitive damages. Under A.R.S. § 12-612, only designated individuals have legal standing to bring these actions on behalf of the deceased and their estate.
Surviving Spouses
A surviving spouse holds the primary right to file a wrongful death claim in Arizona. This includes legal spouses at the time of death regardless of separation status, unless a divorce was finalized before the death occurred. Spouses can pursue both compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of themselves and other survivors. If multiple eligible plaintiffs exist, the spouse typically takes priority unless they waive their right or are unable to serve. Common law spouses are not recognized in Arizona for wrongful death purposes, and domestic partnerships without legal marriage do not convey standing.
Surviving Children and Parents
If no surviving spouse exists, or if the spouse cannot or will not file, surviving children gain standing to bring wrongful death claims. Children include biological children, legally adopted children, and in some circumstances stepchildren if they can demonstrate financial dependency. If no spouse or children survive, the deceased’s parents may file the claim. Parents must typically show they would have benefited from the continued life of their adult child, either financially or through services and support. Arizona law does not allow siblings, extended family members, or unmarried partners to bring wrongful death claims regardless of their relationship with the deceased.
Personal Representatives of the Estate
When designated family members cannot agree on pursuing a claim or when no eligible family member is willing to file, a personal representative appointed by the probate court may bring the wrongful death action. This representative acts on behalf of the estate and all potential beneficiaries. Any punitive damages awarded through the personal representative are distributed according to Arizona intestacy laws or the terms of the deceased’s will. The personal representative has fiduciary duties to all beneficiaries and must pursue the claim in their collective best interests.
The Process for Proving Punitive Damages in Wrongful Death Cases
Pursuing punitive damages in Arizona wrongful death cases requires careful legal strategy and substantial evidence development. The process involves distinct phases that build toward demonstrating the defendant’s culpability.
Establish Liability for the Wrongful Death
Before addressing punitive damages, the family must first prove the defendant caused the death through wrongful conduct. This foundational step requires showing the defendant owed a duty of care to the deceased, breached that duty through action or inaction, and directly caused the death. Standard wrongful death liability typically requires proof by a preponderance of evidence, meaning it was more likely than not that the defendant’s conduct caused the death.
This phase involves gathering accident reports, medical records documenting cause of death, witness statements, expert testimony about causation, and documentation of the defendant’s actions leading to the fatal incident. Without establishing basic liability, the court will never reach the question of punitive damages regardless of how egregious the defendant’s conduct appears.
Demonstrate the Defendant’s State of Mind
Once liability is established, the focus shifts to proving the defendant’s mental state met Arizona’s standards for punitive damages under A.R.S. § 12-689. This requires clear and convincing evidence of either intent to harm or conscious disregard for known risks. The family must show what the defendant knew, when they knew it, and how they responded to that knowledge.
Discovery becomes critical at this stage. Attorneys use depositions to question the defendant and relevant witnesses about their knowledge and decision-making. Document requests target internal communications, safety reports, training materials, prior complaints, and any evidence showing the defendant’s awareness of risks. Expert witnesses may testify about industry standards to demonstrate the defendant’s knowledge of dangers. The goal is building a clear timeline showing the defendant understood the substantial risk their conduct created but chose to proceed anyway.
Present Evidence of Aggravating Factors
Even after proving the defendant’s conduct met the legal threshold, families strengthen their punitive damage claims by presenting aggravating factors that demonstrate why substantial punishment is warranted. These factors might include whether the defendant profited from the dangerous conduct, whether similar conduct harmed others previously, whether the defendant attempted to conceal their wrongdoing after the death occurred, or whether the defendant showed remorse or took corrective action.
Evidence of wealth becomes relevant because punitive damages must be sufficient to actually punish and deter the specific defendant. A corporation with billions in assets requires a larger punitive award than an individual defendant to achieve the same punitive and deterrent effect. Financial records, annual reports, tax returns, and asset valuations help the jury understand what amount would meaningfully impact the defendant’s behavior without being excessive.
Navigate the Bifurcated Trial Process
Arizona courts typically bifurcate wrongful death trials involving punitive damages, separating the proceedings into distinct phases. The first phase addresses liability and compensatory damages. The jury determines whether the defendant caused the death and, if so, what compensatory damages the family should receive for their losses.
Only if the jury finds liability does the trial proceed to a second phase addressing punitive damages. During this phase, the family presents evidence about the defendant’s conduct, state of mind, and financial condition. The defendant may present evidence explaining their conduct or arguing against punitive damages. The jury then decides whether to award punitive damages and, if so, in what amount. This bifurcated process prevents juries from being influenced by inflammatory evidence about the defendant’s wealth or misconduct when first determining basic liability questions.
Calculating Punitive Damage Awards in Arizona
Arizona law does not cap punitive damages in most cases, allowing juries substantial discretion to determine appropriate amounts based on the specific circumstances. The calculation focuses on what amount will effectively punish the defendant and deter similar future conduct while remaining proportional to the harm caused.
Juries consider the severity of the defendant’s misconduct when determining punitive awards. More extreme conduct such as intentional harm or repeated dangerous behavior justifies larger awards than conduct involving reckless indifference to known risks. Courts examine whether the defendant profited from their wrongdoing, as punitive awards should eliminate any financial benefit the defendant gained through their misconduct. The defendant’s financial condition weighs heavily because an amount that punishes a small business might be meaningless to a multinational corporation.
Arizona follows the U.S. Supreme Court’s guidance in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, which established that punitive damages should typically not exceed a single-digit ratio to compensatory damages except in cases involving particularly egregious conduct or small compensatory awards. However, Arizona courts evaluate each case individually rather than applying rigid multipliers. Cases involving intentional conduct, substantial profits from misconduct, or risks of severe harm may justify higher ratios than cases involving momentary recklessness.
Distribution of Punitive Damages in Arizona Wrongful Death Cases
Unlike compensatory damages that go directly to surviving family members, Arizona handles punitive damages differently based on legislative concern about windfalls to plaintiffs. Under A.R.S. § 12-689, punitive damage awards are split between the plaintiff and the State of Arizona.
Plaintiffs receive half of any punitive damage award after deducting reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs. This means the family’s attorney fees come off the top of the total award, and then the remaining amount is divided equally between the plaintiff and the state. The state’s portion goes to Arizona’s general fund to support public programs and services.
This statutory split reflects Arizona’s policy determination that punitive damages serve a public purpose of deterring dangerous conduct rather than purely compensating victims. While some families find this division frustrating after enduring the emotional toll of litigation, the structure ensures substantial funds still reach survivors while directing additional resources toward public benefit. The prospect of receiving at least half the punitive award still provides meaningful incentive for families to pursue these claims when defendant conduct justifies punishment.
Common Scenarios Where Punitive Damages May Apply
Certain types of wrongful death cases more frequently meet Arizona’s standards for punitive damages based on the nature of the conduct typically involved. Understanding these scenarios helps families evaluate whether their case may warrant pursuing punitive claims.
Drunk Driving Fatalities
Drunk driving deaths frequently justify punitive damages because drivers who operate vehicles while severely intoxicated demonstrate conscious disregard for known risks. Evidence of high blood alcohol content, prior DUI convictions, testimony about the driver’s apparent intoxication before driving, or statements showing the driver knew they were impaired strengthens punitive claims. Repeat offenders face particular vulnerability to punitive awards because their history demonstrates knowledge of dangers and indifference to consequences.
Defective Products with Known Dangers
Product liability wrongful deaths may warrant punitive damages when manufacturers knew their products were dangerous but failed to warn consumers or recall defective items. Internal documents showing company awareness of defects, cost-benefit analyses where companies chose profits over safety, patterns of similar injuries or deaths, or evidence that companies suppressed safety concerns all support punitive claims. These cases often involve substantial awards because large manufacturers typically have significant financial resources requiring meaningful punishment.
Medical Provider Gross Negligence
While medical malpractice alone rarely justifies punitive damages, cases involving extreme departures from standard care may qualify. Examples include surgeons operating while impaired by drugs or alcohol, healthcare providers intentionally falsifying medical records to conceal errors, or medical facilities ignoring repeated safety violations resulting in patient deaths. The conduct must go far beyond simple mistakes or errors in judgment that constitute ordinary malpractice.
Workplace Safety Violations
Employer wrongful death cases may involve punitive damages when companies knowingly violate safety regulations or maintain dangerous working conditions after receiving warnings. Evidence might include OSHA citations the employer ignored, documentation that the employer removed or disabled safety equipment, internal communications showing management knew about dangers, or patterns of similar workplace injuries the employer failed to address. The key is showing the employer had actual knowledge of substantial risks but chose to prioritize production or profits over worker safety.
Defenses Against Punitive Damage Claims
Defendants facing punitive damage claims in Arizona wrongful death cases employ various strategies to avoid or minimize these awards. Understanding common defenses helps families and their attorneys prepare comprehensive cases that anticipate and counter defense arguments.
Defendants typically argue their conduct did not meet Arizona’s “evil mind” standard under A.R.S. § 12-689. They may present evidence that they were unaware of specific risks, that they took reasonable precautions based on available information, or that their actions reflected good faith mistakes rather than conscious disregard. Defendants also challenge the sufficiency of evidence, arguing families failed to meet the clear and convincing evidence burden required for punitive damages.
Financial evidence becomes a defense battleground. Defendants may argue that proposed punitive awards are excessive compared to compensatory damages or that awards would create financial hardship threatening jobs, innocent shareholders, or the defendant’s ability to continue operations. They may present expert testimony about their financial condition to argue for lower awards. Some defendants point to corrective measures taken after the death, claiming they demonstrate responsibility and reduce the need for deterrence through punitive damages.
Time Limits for Filing Wrongful Death Claims With Punitive Damages
Arizona imposes strict deadlines for filing wrongful death lawsuits under A.R.S. § 12-542. Families generally have two years from the date of death to file their complaint in court. This deadline applies to all wrongful death claims including those seeking punitive damages.
The two-year statute of limitations is absolute in most cases. If the deadline passes without filing, the court will dismiss the case regardless of how strong the evidence or how egregious the defendant’s conduct. Arizona courts strictly enforce this deadline with very limited exceptions. Families who miss the deadline lose their right to pursue any damages including both compensatory and punitive awards.
Several narrow exceptions may extend the filing deadline in specific circumstances. If the defendant fraudulently concealed their role in the death, the statute may be tolled until the family discovers or reasonably should have discovered the defendant’s involvement. If the deceased was murdered and criminal proceedings delayed civil litigation, tolling may apply. Claims against government entities face even shorter notice requirements, often requiring formal claims within 180 days of the death under A.R.S. § 12-821. Given these strict deadlines and limited exceptions, families should consult experienced wrongful death attorneys immediately after a loved one’s death to preserve all legal rights.
The Role of Criminal Convictions in Punitive Damage Cases
Criminal convictions related to the death can significantly strengthen wrongful death claims for punitive damages, though conviction is not required to pursue or win punitive awards in civil court. Criminal cases involve different burdens of proof and serve different purposes than civil wrongful death claims.
A criminal conviction for murder, manslaughter, vehicular homicide, or other serious offenses provides powerful evidence of the defendant’s culpable mental state. Criminal verdicts show that a jury found beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant engaged in intentional or extremely reckless conduct causing death. This finding makes proving the lower civil standard of clear and convincing evidence substantially easier. Families can introduce the criminal conviction as evidence in their civil case, and defendants cannot relitigate issues decided in the criminal trial.
However, families can pursue punitive damages even when no criminal charges were filed or when criminal cases resulted in acquittal. Civil and criminal cases have different standards of proof, with civil cases requiring only clear and convincing evidence for punitive damages rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt. Criminal acquittals do not prevent civil liability because juries may find sufficient evidence for civil standards even when evidence falls short of criminal standards. Many wrongful death cases involve conduct that was egregious enough for punitive damages without being criminal, such as companies knowingly selling dangerous products or property owners maintaining hazards after repeated warnings.
How Punitive Damages Interact With Compensatory Damages
Punitive and compensatory damages serve complementary but distinct purposes in wrongful death cases. Understanding their interaction helps families develop comprehensive litigation strategies that address both dimensions of recovery.
Compensatory damages must be established before courts will consider punitive damages. Families cannot seek punishment without first proving actual harm and quantifying their losses. The compensatory award includes economic damages for medical expenses before death, funeral and burial costs, loss of the deceased’s expected financial support, and loss of benefits like health insurance or retirement contributions. It also includes non-economic damages for loss of companionship, guidance, love, and emotional support the deceased would have provided.
The ratio between punitive and compensatory awards matters significantly. While Arizona does not impose statutory caps on punitive damages in most cases, constitutional due process limits require that punitive awards maintain some reasonable relationship to compensatory damages. Courts review whether punitive awards are grossly excessive compared to the harm caused, generally expecting single-digit ratios in most cases. However, particularly egregious conduct combined with substantial potential harm may justify higher ratios even when actual compensatory damages are relatively modest.
Insurance Coverage and Punitive Damages
Insurance coverage significantly affects punitive damage recovery in Arizona wrongful death cases, with complex rules governing what policies cover and what remains the defendant’s personal responsibility. These coverage issues directly impact families’ ability to collect awards even after successful verdicts.
Arizona generally allows insurance policies to cover punitive damages unless specific statutes prohibit coverage. Many liability insurance policies include punitive damage coverage, meaning insurers must pay awards up to policy limits when their insureds are found liable. However, insurance contracts often contain exclusions for intentional conduct, meaning policies may not cover punitive damages arising from intentional harm even though they might cover punitive damages for reckless conduct.
Insurance disputes frequently arise after punitive damage awards. Insurers may claim their policies exclude coverage for the specific conduct involved or that punitive damages fall outside policy terms. These disputes can delay payment to families and require separate coverage litigation. When insurance is insufficient or unavailable, families must pursue collection directly against defendants’ personal assets, which may prove difficult if defendants lack substantial resources. Before investing significant litigation costs pursuing punitive damages, experienced attorneys evaluate whether the defendant has insurance coverage or sufficient assets to pay potential awards.
Challenges Families Face in Pursuing Punitive Damages
Pursuing punitive damages adds complexity, cost, and time to wrongful death litigation. Families should understand these challenges before deciding whether to seek punitive awards in their cases.
Meeting the clear and convincing evidence standard requires extensive investigation and discovery. Families must obtain internal documents, depose key witnesses, retain expert witnesses, and build compelling proof of the defendant’s knowledge and state of mind. This investigation costs substantially more than standard wrongful death cases focusing only on compensatory damages. Extended litigation also delays resolution, prolonging families’ emotional stress and uncertainty.
Defendants fight punitive claims more aggressively than compensatory claims because punitive awards directly punish defendants and may establish precedents affecting their broader operations. Expect vigorous defense efforts including attempts to dismiss punitive claims before trial, extensive discovery battles over sensitive internal documents, multiple motions challenging evidence admissibility, and aggressive trial advocacy. These defense efforts increase litigation costs and demand substantial family involvement through depositions and testimony.
Strategic Considerations for Families Evaluating Punitive Claims
Deciding whether to pursue punitive damages requires careful analysis of the specific facts, potential recovery, litigation costs, and family goals. Not every wrongful death case warrants seeking punitive awards even when the death was tragic and preventable.
Cases with compelling evidence of egregious conduct, substantial discovery revealing the defendant’s knowledge and indifference, defendants with significant financial resources making meaningful awards possible, and strong compensatory claims establishing a foundation for punitive damages present the strongest candidates for pursuing punitive claims. Families should also consider their emotional capacity for extended litigation and whether the potential punitive recovery justifies the additional time and stress involved.
Some families prioritize accountability and deterrence over maximum financial recovery, viewing punitive damages as essential for preventing future deaths. Others prefer faster resolution through settlement, accepting lower recovery to avoid the uncertainty and stress of trial. These decisions are deeply personal and should be made with guidance from experienced attorneys who can evaluate the strength of specific claims and likelihood of success. Settlement negotiations may include punitive damage claims as leverage even if the case ultimately resolves for compensatory damages alone.
How Life Justice Law Group Approaches Punitive Damage Cases
Life Justice Law Group brings focused experience to wrongful death cases involving punitive damages in Arizona. Our approach combines thorough investigation, aggressive advocacy, and compassionate client support throughout the litigation process.
We begin every case with comprehensive investigation to determine whether conduct warrants pursuing punitive claims. This includes reviewing all accident reports and evidence, interviewing witnesses and experts, obtaining relevant documents through discovery, and analyzing the defendant’s knowledge and decision-making before the death. We only recommend pursuing punitive damages when evidence supports a strong likelihood of success given the substantial additional costs and time involved.
Our trial attorneys have successfully recovered punitive damages in wrongful death cases involving corporate misconduct, extreme negligence, and intentional harm. We understand how to present compelling evidence of defendants’ states of mind, counter defense arguments minimizing culpability, and advocate effectively for meaningful awards that truly punish and deter dangerous conduct. Most importantly, we guide families through every stage of litigation with transparent communication about strategies, costs, realistic expectations, and progress toward resolution. If you lost a loved one due to someone’s egregious conduct, contact Life Justice Law Group at (480) 378-8088 for a free consultation to discuss whether your case may warrant pursuing punitive damages.
Frequently Asked Questions About Wrongful Death Punitive Damages in Arizona
What is the difference between punitive and compensatory damages in wrongful death cases?
Compensatory damages reimburse families for actual losses including medical bills, funeral costs, lost financial support, and emotional suffering caused by the death. Punitive damages serve a different purpose entirely by punishing defendants for particularly egregious conduct and deterring similar behavior in the future. While compensatory damages focus on making families whole financially and emotionally, punitive damages focus on the defendant’s culpability and preventing future wrongful deaths through meaningful punishment.
Can I get punitive damages if my loved one died in a car accident?
Punitive damages are possible in fatal car accidents but only when the defendant’s conduct went far beyond ordinary negligence. Standard car accidents caused by momentary inattention or simple carelessness do not justify punitive damages even when they result in death. However, if the driver was severely intoxicated, racing recklessly despite knowing the danger, or had multiple prior DUI convictions showing conscious disregard for safety, punitive damages may be appropriate. The key is proving the driver knew their actions created substantial risk of serious harm but proceeded anyway with indifference to consequences.
How much are punitive damages typically worth in Arizona wrongful death cases?
Punitive damage amounts vary dramatically based on the severity of defendant conduct, the compensatory damages awarded, and the defendant’s financial resources. Awards can range from modest amounts in the thousands to millions of dollars in cases involving wealthy defendants and extremely egregious conduct. Arizona courts generally expect punitive damages to maintain reasonable ratios to compensatory damages, often in single-digit multiples, though particularly shocking conduct may justify higher ratios. The jury determines the specific amount needed to punish the particular defendant and deter future similar conduct.
Does Arizona cap punitive damages in wrongful death cases?
Arizona does not impose statutory caps on punitive damages in most wrongful death cases. However, constitutional due process principles require that punitive awards not be grossly excessive compared to the harm caused. Courts review awards for excessiveness considering factors like the reprehensibility of defendant conduct, the ratio between punitive and compensatory damages, and comparable awards in similar cases. While no fixed cap exists, extremely high awards face appellate scrutiny to ensure they remain within constitutional limits.
How long does it take to resolve a wrongful death case with punitive damages?
Wrongful death cases seeking punitive damages typically take longer to resolve than cases pursuing only compensatory damages. Most cases require 18 months to three years from filing to trial, with complex cases involving extensive discovery sometimes taking longer. The bifurcated trial process for punitive damages adds time compared to single-phase trials. Many cases settle before trial once discovery reveals the strength of evidence supporting punitive claims, potentially reducing the overall timeline. Settlement timing depends on how quickly parties can complete discovery, assess case strength, and reach agreement on fair resolution amounts.
Can the defendant’s insurance cover punitive damages in Arizona?
Arizona generally permits insurance policies to cover punitive damages unless specific statutes prohibit coverage for certain conduct. Many liability insurance policies include punitive damage coverage, meaning insurers must pay awards up to policy limits. However, policies often exclude coverage for intentional acts, so punitive damages based on intentional harm may not be covered even when punitive damages for reckless conduct would be. Coverage disputes frequently arise after punitive awards, sometimes requiring separate litigation to determine whether insurance applies. Families should work with attorneys who can evaluate likely insurance coverage before investing substantial resources pursuing punitive claims.
What happens to punitive damages after they are awarded?
Arizona law requires splitting punitive damage awards between the plaintiff family and the State of Arizona under A.R.S. § 12-689. After deducting reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs from the total award, the remaining amount is divided equally with half going to the plaintiff and half to the state’s general fund. This means families receive their full compensatory damages plus half of the net punitive award after legal expenses. While some families find this division frustrating, the structure reflects Arizona’s policy that punitive damages serve public deterrence purposes beyond compensating individual victims.
Should I accept a settlement offer that doesn’t include punitive damages?
Settlement decisions require careful analysis of the specific offer amount, strength of your punitive damage claim, costs and risks of continued litigation, and your family’s priorities. Many defendants settle wrongful death cases for amounts that effectively include punitive considerations even though settlements do not separately designate punitive components. If the settlement offer provides fair compensation for your losses and reflects accountability for egregious conduct, accepting settlement may be wise despite not receiving a designated punitive award. However, if offers substantially undervalue your claim and strong evidence supports punitive damages, proceeding to trial may be appropriate. Discuss settlement offers thoroughly with your attorney before making decisions.