ANN LEIGHTON V GAIL A ZEIGLER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
ANN LEIGHTON,
UNPUBLISHED
November 22, 1996
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 187747
LC No. 94-001151-CZ
GAIL A. ZEIGLER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Saad, P.J., and Griffin and M. H. Cherry,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Following a bench trial, the trial court found that defendant had stalked plaintiff as defined in
MCL 750.411h; MSA 28.653(8), and awarded plaintiff $2,212.72 in costs and damages pursuant to
the civil stalking statute, MCL 600.2954; MSA 27A.2954. Defendant appeals from the judgment as of
right. We affirm.
Defendant first contends that the trial court erred in finding that defendant stalked plaintiff. We
disagree. The evidence demonstrated that defendant purposefully harassed plaintiff, including repeated
and purposeful contacts with plaintiff long after defendant was made aware that she no longer wished to
have contact with him, causing plaintiff to feel frightened and intimidated. MCL 750.411h(1); MSA
28.643(8)(1). Testimonial and circumstantial evidence presented at trial also indicated that defendant
was responsible for placing dead animals on and near plaintiff’s car and throwing raw chicken parts on
the balcony of plaintiff’s apartment. The trial court’s finding that defendant engaged in stalking was not
clearly erroneous.
Defendant next contends that the trial court incorrectly assessed plaintiff’s damages, in that it
required plaintiff’s damages to have been foreseeable by defendant. We disagree. We note that the
trial court specifically found that plaintiff’s damages were incurred “as a result of defendant’s conduct,”
as required by the civil stalking statute. MCL 600.2954(1); MSA 27A.2954(1). Defendant also
argues that the trial court erred when it awarded damages to plaintiff for her expenses; defendant
maintains that plaintiff did not prove her expenses with reasonable certainty. We disagree. We note
that plaintiff testified regarding the general nature of her expenses and attested to the accuracy of a
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
summarized list of her expenses. We also note that the trial court received this list as a non-evidentiary
reference of plaintiff’s testimony. Reviewing these items together, the trial court’s findings regarding the
amount of plaintiff’s expenses were not clearly erroneous.
Finally, defendant contends that the trial court erred when it awarded plaintiff exemplary
damages. We disagree. Defendant admits that he placed a pair of women’s panties with plaintiff’s
name written on them over a sign at plaintiff’s place of employment. We agree with the trial court that
this demonstrated a wilful and reckless disregard of plaintiff’s rights. Given plaintiff’s resulting feelings of
humiliation, outrage, and indignity, exemplary damages were wholly appropriate. Veselenak v Smith,
414 Mich 567, 574-575; 327 NW2d 261 (1982); see also Janda v Detroit, 175 Mich App 120,
127-128; 437 NW2d 326 (1989). Furthermore, defendant’s contention that an award of exemplary
damages somehow allows plaintiff to recover twice for her injuries is simply wrong. Plaintiff recovered
for her out-of-pocket expenses and for her emotional damages only once each.
Affirmed.
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Michael H. Cherry
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
