practice and protocol. We do not question that Amanda’s proof is sufficient for a negligence claim against Nissan. Our review, however, extends to the enhanced culpability required for punitive damages. Proving Gross Negligence Successful completion of regulatory product testing weighs against a finding of gross negligence.' Accordingly, exceeding mandatory requirements by successfully completing more rigorous testing strongly weighs against such a finding. The logic is clear. Meeting and then exceeding base safety requirements is, at the- very least, facial evidence of exercising slight care. Federal courts applying Kentucky law have correctly- observed this standard. E.g,, Cameron v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., No. Civ.A.5:04-CV-24, 2005 WL 2674990, at *9 (E.D.Ky. Oct. 20, 2005) (<HOLDING>). This approach has also been adopted by
holding that the undisputed fact that manufacturer complied with federal safety standards weighed against punitive damages holding that a reduction in punitive damages to comply with the due process clause is a federal constitutional issue not a fact issue requiring jury consideration holding that indemnification by excess liability insurer for punitive damages imposed on drug manufacturer contrary to public policy holding a court may not award punitive damages holding that punitive damages could not be granted because punitive damages are a matter of substantive law and substantive state law  must yield to federal limitations