 Britt allowed evidence that was entirely unrelated to the question of what, if any, damages were suffered by the plaintiffs and whether or not the respondent was responsible for them.For example, Britt allowed testimony about the compensation of and other senior managers to influence punitive damages, and he allowed the plaintiffs to use an expert witness but refused to allow the respondent to call their own expert on the same subject matter.The definition of "willful and wanton misconduct" applied by Britt is also at issue.