In Medo v. Superior Court (1988) 205 Cal. App. 3d 64, the trial court ordered a new trial on all issues when the jury was discharged after completion of the liability phase. While agreeing with the plaintiffs' assertion that the defendants had waived their right to have the same jury determine both liability and the right to punitive damages, the appellate court nonetheless noted, "punitive damages are not simply recoverable in the abstract. They must be tied to oppression, fraud or malice in the conduct which gave rise to liability in the case. Thus . . ., the instruction on punitive damages tells the jury that in arriving at an award of punitive damages, it is to consider the reprehensibility of the conduct of the defendant and that the punitive damages must bear a reasonable relation to the actual damages. In order for a jury to evaluate the oppression, fraud or malice in the conduct giving rise to liability in the case, it must consider the conduct giving rise to liability." ( Medo v. Superior Court, supra, 205 Cal. App. 3d at p. 68.)