SHAHROKHFAR v STATE FARM MUT AUTO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 80-466 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 SHAHFUN SHAHROKHFAR, Plaintiff and Respondent, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Gallatin Honorable Joseph Gary, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Lyman H. Bennett, I11 argued, Bozeman, Montana For Respondent: Anderson, Edwards and Molloy, Billings, Montana A. Clifford Edwards argued, Billings, Montana Submitted: Decided : Filed: 3Cr r i ?98F September 21, 1981 V .. OCT 1 4 1947 M r . J u s t i c e Frank B. Morrison, J r . , d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Defendant S t a t e Farm Mutual ( S t a t e Farm) a p p e a l s a n award of damages t o t h e p l a i n t i f f . P l a i n t i f f cross-appeals a D i s t r i c t C o u r t r u l i n g t h a t reduced a p u n i t i v e damage award by t h e p e r c e n t a g e t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f w a s found t o b e c o n t r i butorily negligent. W e a f f i r m t h e award of damages t o t h e p l a i n t i f f and r e v e r s e t h e r e d u c t i o n o f p u n i t i v e damages. A S t a t e Farm i n s u r e d had a n a u t o m o b i l e a c c i d e n t w i t h one Bahram S h a h r o k h f a r , b r o t h e r o f t h e p l a i n t i f f . State Farm p a i d t h e p r o p e r t y damage of i t s i n s u r e d and t h e n , through an e x e r c i s e of subrogation r i g h t s , f i l e d an a c t i o n t o c o l l e c t damages from t h e a l l e g e d l y n e g l i g e n t t h i r d p a r t y . However, i n s t e a d of s u i n g Bahram S h a h r o k h f a r , S t a t e Farm, t h r o u g h i t s a g e n t , R o b e r t Heath, m i s t a k e n l y sued Shahram Shahrokhfar. The p l a i n t i f f , a l t h o u g h d i s p u t e d by S t a t e Farm, t e s t i f i e d h e a d v i s e d S t a t e Farm t h a t t h e wrong p e r s o n had been sued. N e v e r t h e l e s s d e f a u l t judgment was t a k e n a g a i n s t t h e p l a i n t i f f and t h e r e a f t e r h i s d r i v i n g p r i v i l e g e s were suspended. The p l a i n t i f f knew a b o u t t h e l a w s u i t b u t r e f u s e d t o t a k e any a c t i o n i n d e f e n s e , s i m p l y r e l y i n g upon h i s n o t i c e t o S t a t e Farm t h a t t h e wrong p a r t y had been sued. S t a t e Farm e v e n t u a l l y d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e c o r r e c t p a r t y was Bahram S h a h r o k h f a r , and a c t i o n was immediately t a k e n t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t judgment and r e i n s t a t e p l a i n t i f f ' s d r i v i n g privileges. The p l a i n t i f f s u b s e q u e n t l y sued S t a t e Farm grounded i n t h e n e g l i g e n c e o f i t s a g e n t and a t t o r n e y , R o b e r t Heath. The j u r y found: 1. S t a t e Farm, a c t i n g t h r o u g h i t s a g e n t , R o b e r t Heath, w a s negligent. 2. Such n e g l i g e n c e was a proximate c a u s e of t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s damage. 3 . The p l a i n t i f f was c o n t r i b u t o r i l y n e g l i g e n t . 4 . P l a i n t i f f ' s c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e was n o t a p r o x i mate c a u s e of h i s damage. 5. Negligence was a p p o r t i o n e d on t h e b a s i s of e i g h t y - f o u r p e r c e n t t o t h e d e f e n d a n t and s i x t e e n p e r c e n t t o t h e plaintiff . 6. The j u r y found a c t u a l damages i n t h e amount of $850 and p u n i t i v e damages i n t h e amount of $80,000. The t r i a l judge reduced t h e e n t i r e damage award by t h e s i x t e e n p e r c e n t t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f w a s found t o b e n e g l i g e n t . The f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s are r a i s e d by a p p e l l a n t : 1. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err i n f a i l i n g t o g r a n t d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t based on p l a i n t i f f ' s f a i l u r e t o c a l l an expert witness? 2. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n g i v i n g t h e s t a n d a r d negligence i n s t r u c t i o n i n s t e a d of a negligence i n s t r u c t i o n t a i l o r e d t o t h e d u t y owed by a n a t t o r n e y ? 3 . Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n f a i l i n g t o withdraw t h e q u e s t i o n of p u n i t i v e damages from t h e j u r y ? 4. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err i n f a i l i n g t o i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y on t h e d o c t r i n e o f assumption of r i s k ? 5. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err i n f a i l i n g t o i n s t r u c t on m i t i g a t i o n of damages? 6. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err i n n o t r e q u i r i n g t h e j u r y t o r e t u r n a g e n e r a l v e r d i c t r e d u c i n g t h e amount of damages themselves r a t h e r than r e s e r v i n g t h a t m a t t e r f o r t h e c o u r t ? P l a i n t i f f , a s cross-appellant, issue: raises t h e f o l l o w i n g 1. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n r e d u c i n g t h e p u n i t i v e damage award by t h e p e r c e n t a g e t h a t t h e j u r y found t h e p l a i n t i f f t o be n e g l i g e n t ? S t a t e Farm f i r s t a r g u e s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s h o u l d have d i r e c t e d a v e r d i c t i n f a v o r of d e f e n d a n t b e c a u s e p l a i n t i f f d i d n o t produce a n e x p e r t t o t e s t i f y t h a t S t a t e Farm's a g e n t , R o b e r t Heath, was n e g l i g e n t . W e h o l d t h a t a n e x p e r t w i t n e s s w a s n o t n e c e s s a r y under t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . r u l e i s well-established ". . . w i t h The i n Montana t h a t , r e g a r d i n g matters r e s p e c t t o which a layman c a n have no knowledge a t a l l , t h e c o u r t and j u r y must b e d e p e n d e n t on e x p e r t e v i d e n c e . " C a l l a h a n v. Burton ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 157 Mont. 487 P.2d 515, 518-519, ( 1 9 2 0 ) , 58 Mont. 513, 520, q u o t i n g Schwnacher v . Murray H o s p i t a l 447, 462, 193 P . 397, 402. S t a t e Farm a r g u e s t h a t t h e a c t i o n of i t s a g e n t , R o b e r t Heath, i n f i l i n g a c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t t h e wrong d e f e n d a n t (1) i n v o l v e s t h e t e c h n i c a l e x p e r t i s e of an a t t o r n e y , ( 2 ) must be judged by t h e s t a n d a r d s a p p l i c a b l e t o a t t o r n e y s , and ( 3 ) t h e t e s t i m o n y o f a n a t t o r n e y i s n e c e s s a r y i n o r d e r t o d e t e r m i n e whether t h e c o n d u c t conformed t o a c c e p t a b l e p r a c t i c e f o r a n a t t o r n e y under s i m i l a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s . I n t h i s c a s e S t a t e Farm's a g e n t , R o b e r t Heath, a n a t t o r n e y , f i l e d t h e c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t a p e r s o n who w a s n o t involved i n the accident. Though t h i s f a c t was b r o u g h t t o t h e a t t e n t i o n of Heath, t h e l i t i g a t i o n w a s p u r s u e d t o judgment. Whether t h e a c t i o n s of S t a t e Farm's a g e n t and a t t o r n e y under t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s w e r e " n e g l i g e n t " w a s w e l l w i t h i n t h e r e a l m of knowledge of a l a y p e r s o n . Nothing l e g a l l y t e c h n i c a l i s i n v o l v e d i n judging H e a t h ' s conduct. E x p e r t t e s t i m o n y i s n o t r e q u i r e d a n d , under t h e f a c t s of t h i s c a s e , would n o t have been h e l p f u l . The second i s s u e urged by a p p e l l a n t i s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f a i l e d t o p r o p e r l y i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y on a " n e g l i g e n c e s t a n d a r d ." C o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n no. 6 s t a t e d : "Every p e r s o n , o r c o r p o r a t i o n , i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r i n j u r y t o t h e p e r s o n o r p r o p e r t y of a n o t h e r , c a u s e d by want of o r d i n a r y c a r e o r s k i l l , (subj e c t t o t h e d o c t r i n e of c o m p a r a t i v e n e g l i g e n c e , which i s d e f i n e d e l s e w h e r e i n t h e s e i n s t r u c t i o n s ) . When used i n t h e s e i n s t r u c t i o n s , n e g l i g e n c e means want of such o r d i n a r y c a r e o r s k i l l . Such want of o r d i n a r y c a r e o r s k i l l e x i s t s when t h e r e i s a f a i l u r e t o do t h a t which a r e a s o n a b l e and p r u d e n t p e r s o n would o r d i n a r i l y have done under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h e s i t u a t i o n , o r d o i n g what such p e r s o n under t h e e x i s t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s would n o t have done. " S t a t e Farm o b j e c t e d t o t h e i n s t r u c t i o n f o r t h e r e a s o n t h a t S t a t e Farm' s a t t o r n e y , R o b e r t Heath, was a c t i n g i n h i s p r o f e s s i o n a l c a p a c i t y and t h e s k i l l r e q u i r e d of him was o r d i n a r y s k i l l of a p r o f e s s i o n a l p r a c t i c i n g i n t h e s a m e profession. Defendant proposed a n i n s t r u c t i o n which pro- vided: "By u n d e r t a k i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l s e r v i c e t o a c l i e n t , an a t t o r n e y r e p r e s e n t s t h a t he has t h e n e c e s s a r y d e g r e e of s k i l l and l e a r n i n g t o do s o . T h a t d e c r e e [ s i c ] of s k i l l and l e a r n i n g i s g e n e r a l l y measured by t h e s k i l l and l e a r n i n g p o s s e s s e d by o t h e r a t t o r n e y s i n good s t a n d i n g p r a c t i c i n g i n s i m i l a r l o c a l i t i e s under s i m i l a r circumstances . " I t i s h i s f u r t h e r d u t y t o u s e t h a t s k i l l and l e a r n i n g a s o r d i n a r i l y used i n l i k e c a s e s by r e p u t a b l e members of h i s p r o f e s s i o n p r a c t i c i n g i n s i m i l a r l o c a l i t i e s and under s i m i l a r circums t a n c e s and t o b e d i l i g e n t and u s e h i s b e s t judgment and l e a r n i n g i n an e f f o r t t o accomplish t h e p u r p o s e f o r which he i s employed. "The v i o l a t i o n of any of t h e s e d u t i e s i s a form of negligence. " I f you s h o u l d f i n d t h a t R o b e r t E. Heath f a i l e d t o c a r r y o u r [ s i c ] on any one o r more of t h e s e d u t i e s and s u c h f a i l u r e was t h e p r o x i m a t e c a u s e of t h e damage t o which t h e p l a i n t i f f complains, t h e n your v e r d i c t must b e f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f . "The way i n which you may d e c i d e whether R o b e r t Heath p o s s e s s e d and used t h e knowledge and s k i l l and c a r e which t h e law demands of him i s from e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s t r i a l by a t t o r neys c a l l e d as e x p e r t w i t n e s s e s . " E. Our d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e f i r s t i s s u e r e s o l v e s t h e p r o p r i e t y o f g i v i n g t h e above-quoted i n s t r u c t i o n o f f e r e d by S t a t e Farm. W have h e l d t h a t i t was n o t n e c e s s a r y t o c a l l e a n e x p e r t w i t n e s s and, t h e r e f o r e , i t would have been improper t o g i v e t h e i n s t r u c t i o n o f f e r e d by d e f e n d a n t . Had d e f e n d a n t o f f e r e d t h e i n s t r u c t i o n w i t h o u t r e f e r e n c e t o t h e n e c e s s i t y of c a l l i n g e x p e r t w i t n e s s e s , n e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o u l d n o t have committed e r r o r p r e j u d i c i a l t o d e f e n d a n t S t a t e Farm by g i v i n g a s t a n d a r d i n s t r u c - t i o n on n e g l i g e n c e and r e f u s i n g t h e i n s t r u c t i o n proposed by S t a t e Farm. An i n s t r u c t i o n which c a u s e d S t a t e Farm1s a t t o r - ney, R o b e r t Heath, t o b e judged by p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a n d a r d s would o n l y i n c r e a s e t h e s t a n d a r d of care and r e q u i r e more of S t a t e Farm's a t t o r n e y t h a n was r e q u i r e d under t h e i n s t r u c t i o n g i v e n by t h e c o u r t . Under t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , S t a t e Farm c l e a r l y c a n n o t c l a i m p r e j u d i c e . I n i t s t h i r d a s s i g n m e n t of e r r o r , S t a t e Farm c o n t e n d s t h a t p u n i t i v e damages s h o u l d have been withdrawn from t h e j u r y . A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t (1) t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e of compensatory damage, and ( 2 ) t h e c o n d u c t of S t a t e Farm w a s l e g a l l y i n s u f f i c i e n t t o j u s t i f y t h e s u b m i s s i o n of a p u n i t i v e damage i s s u e . There w a s e v i d e n c e from which t h e j u r y c o u l d i n f e r t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s u f f e r e d r e s t r i c t i o n s , and t h e r e b y compensatory damage, from having h i s d r i v i n g p r i v i l e g e s revoked. Any s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e of compensatory damages i s s u f f i c i e n t t o j u s t i f y submission of p u n i t i v e damages t o t h e jury. Lauman v. Lee ( 1 9 8 1 ) , - Mont. -, 626 P.2d 830, 38 I n Lauman w e a f f i r m e d a n award of p u n i t i v e S t - R e p . 499. damages a l t h o u g h t h e j u r y f a i l e d t o f i n d any s p e c i f i c d o l l a r amounts of compensatory damage s u f f e r e d . I n t h i s case the j u r y d i d make a f i n d i n g o f compensatory damage and awarded $850 t h e r e f o r . Under t h e s e f a c t s t h e r e was s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e of compensatory damage t o j u s t i f y t h e s u b m i s s i o n of t h e p u n i t i v e damage i s s u e . Next, a p p e l l a n t a l l e g e s e r r o r i n s u b m i s s i o n o f p u n i t i v e damages c l a i m i n g i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e of r e p r e h e n s i b l e c o n d u c t on t h e p a r t of S t a t e Farm. This contention i s d i s p o s e d of i n Graham v. C l a r k s Fork Nat. Bank ( 1 9 8 1 ) , , Mont. 631 P.2d 718, 38 St.Rep. 1140. - I n t h e Graham c a s e w e found s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o j u s t i f y t h e s u b m i s s i o n o f p u n i t i v e damages from t h e f o l l o w i n g f a c t s : (1) The d e f e n d a n t had s e i z e d p l a i n t i f f ' s cows, m i s t a k e n l y t h i n k i n g t h e y belonged t o a bank d e b t o r ; and ( 2 ) when t h e p l a i n t i f f a t t e m p t e d t o r e c o v e r h i s cows, t h e bank adamantly r e f u s e d t o d i v u l g e t h e i r l o c a t i o n and t h e r e a f t e r r e t u r n e d them t o t h e wrong l o c a t i o n . W e h e l d t h a t such f a c t s r a i s e d a n i s s u e f o r t h e j u r y ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of p u n i t i v e damages under t h e " r e c k l e s s n e s s " s t a n d a r d e n u n c i a t e d i n Klind v. V a l l e y County Bank ( 1 9 2 4 ) , 69 Mont. 386, 222 P . 439. I n t h i s case State Farm sued t h e wrong p e r s o n and though a d v i s e d of i t s m i s t a k e , r e f u s e d t o make a c o r r e c t i o n . A s i n Graham, t h e s e f a c t s a r e s u f f i c i e n t f o r t h e j u r y t o d e t e r m i n e t h a t S t a t e Farm a c t e d r e c k l e s s l y and t h a t i t b e s u b j e c t t o t h e s a n c t i o n of p u n i t i v e damages. Next, a p p e l l a n t u r g e s r e v e r s a l f o r f a i l u r e of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y on "assumption of r i s k . " S t a t e Farm s u b m i t t e d a n assumption o f r i s k i n s t r u c t i o n which was r e f u s e d . S t a t e Farm c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f assumed t h e r i s k by f a i l i n g t o o b t a i n l e g a l c o u n s e l and a l l o w i n g S t a t e Farm t o p r o c e e d t o a d e f a u l t judgment. Assumption o f r i s k i s a d e f e n s e which f i n d s i t s r o o t s i n t h e employee/employer r e l a t i o n s h i p . Its application t o t o r t i o u s c o n d u c t o u t s i d e t h a t r e l a t i o n s h i p s h o u l d be n a r rowly c o n f i n e d . The e s s e n c e o f assumption of r i s k i s a c o n t e n t i o n t h a t p l a i n t i f f v o l u n t a r i l y exposed h i m s e l f t o a d a n g e r which was f u l l y a p p r e c i a t e d . The c o n d u c t i n v o l v e s a s u b j e c t i v e standard r a t h e r than t h e o b j e c t i v e standard a p p l i c a b l e t o c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e . Brown v. North Am. Mfg. Co. ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 176 Mont. 98, 576 P.2d 711. Here t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h e r e was s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e o f c a r e l e s s n e s s on t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s p a r t t o r e q u i r e submission of c o n t r i b u t o r y negligence t o t h e jury. However, t h e t r i a l c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t assumption o f r i s k w a s n o t a p p l i c a b l e . There i s no e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f f u l l y a p p r e c i a t e d t h e r i s k of n o t o b t a i n i n g l e g a l c o u n s e l . The D i s t r i c t Court d i d n o t abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n f a i l i n g t o i n s t r u c t on t h e d e f e n s e o f "assumption o f r i s k . " A p p e l l a n t r e q u e s t e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o i n s t r u c t on " m i t i g a t i o n of damages" and proposed t h e f o l l o w i n g i n s t r u c t i o n : "A p e r s o n who h a s s u s t a i n e d damage by t h e w r o n g f u l a c t of a n o t h e r i s bound t o e x e r c i s e r e a s o n a b l e c a r e and d i l i g e n c e t o a v o i d l o s s and t o minimize t h e damages, and he may n o t r e c o v e r f o r damages which c o u l d have been p r e v e n t e d by r e a s o n a b l e e f f o r t s on h i s p a r t o r by e x p e d i t u r e s [ s i c ] t h a t h e m i g h t r e a s o n a b l y have made." Counsel f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f o b j e c t e d t o t h e proposed i n s t r u c t i o n f o r t h e r e a s o n t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t had p r e v i o u s l y i n s t r u c t e d on c o m p a r a t i v e n e g l i g e n c e and t h e m i t i g a t i o n i n s t r u c t i o n was r e p e t i . t i o u s . Plaintiff further a r g u e d t h a t t h e proposed i n s t r u c t i o n w a s i n c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e comparative negligence i n s t r u c t i o n because f a i l u r e t o m i t i g a t e damage c o u l d p r e v e n t r e c o v e r y r a t h e r t h a n r e d u c e The D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e f u s e d t h e i n s t r u c t i o n . recovery. S t a t e Farm a r g u e s f o r m i t i g a t i o n premised upon t h e same f a c t s s u b m i t t e d t o t h e j u r y f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n under c o m p a r a t i v e negligence. W e a g r e e w i t h t h e p l a i n t i f f t h a t , under t h e f a c t s of t h i s c a s e , i t would have been improper t o i n s t r u c t on " m i t i g a t i o n of damages." The j u r y p r o p e r l y was a l l o w e d t o c o n s i d e r p l a i n t i f f ' s c o n d u c t i n f a i l i n g t o respond t o t h e summons and i n f a i l i n g t o r e t a i n c o u n s e l , under t h e comparat i v e n e g l i g e n c e i n s t r u c t i o n . Any n e g l i g e n c e found t o e x i s t would p r o p e r l y r e d u c e compensatory damages s u f f e r e d . Nothing e l s e c o u l d be accomplished w i t h a " m i t i g a t i o n of damage" i n s t r u c t i o n and t h e t r i a l c o u r t p r o p e r l y r e f u s e d t o i n j e c t t h i s r e p e t i t i o u s and p o t e n t i a l l y c o n f u s i n g i s s u e . The l a s t i s s u e r a i s e d by S t a t e Farm c l a i m s e r r o r i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court's r e f u s a l t o allow t h e jury t o r e t u r n a general verdict. Special interrogatories, usually strongly s u p p o r t e d by d e f e n s e a t t o r n e y s , were s u b m i t t e d t o t h e j u r y and t h e j u r y made s p e c i a l f i n d i n g s which have been p r e v i o u s l y s e t f o r t h i n t h i s opinion. The s p e c i a l f i n d i n g s of t h e j u r y c o u l d n o t have worked any p r e j u d i c e f o r S t a t e F a r m , b u t do provide t h e b a s i s f o r p l a i n t i f f ' s cross-appeal. The v e r d i c t form found t h a t p l a i n t i f f w a s n e g l i g e n t b u t t h a t such n e g l i g e n c e w a s n o t a p r o x i m a t e c a u s e of p l a i n t i f f ' s damage. However, t h e j u r o r s , when l a t e r q u e s t i o n e d by t h e D i s t r i c t Court, s t a t e d t h a t they intended t o reduce p l a i n t i f f ' s award by t h e p e r c e n t a g e t h e j u r y found p l a i n t i f f t o be negligent. Eased upon t h i s a s s u r a n c e , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e d u c e d p l a i n t i f f ' s damages by s i x t e e n p e r c e n t , t h e p e r c e n t a g e found by t h e j u r y t o r e p r e s e n t p l a i n t i f f ' s n e g l i g e n c e . Both t h e compensatory and p u n i t i v e awards w e r e s o reduced. The j u r y ' s e x p l a n a t i o n t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t was i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e f i n d i n g made by t h e j u r y on t h e v e r d i c t form. However, t h e o n l y p a r t y who c o u l d be p r e j u d i c e d was t h e p l a i n t i f f and t h e p l a i n t i f f d o e s n o t c l a i m e r r o r . P l a i n t i f f concedes t h a t t h e compensatory award c a n be reduced by s i x t e e n p e r c e n t a l t h o u g h on t h e v e r d i c t form p l a i n t i f f ' s n e g l i g e n c e was n o t found t o be a p r o x i m a t e c a u s e of damage. P l a i n t i f f o n l y a s s i g n s e r r o r a r i s i n g o u t of r e d u c t i o n of t h e p u n i t i v e damage award. T h i s C o u r t h a s n o t p r e v i o u s l y r u l e d on t h e q u e s t i o n of whether p u n i t i v e damages c a n be reduced by t h e p e r c e n t a g e of p l a i n t i f f ' s contributory negligence. S i n c e t h e p u r p o s e of p u n i t i v e damages i s t o p u n i s h t h e d e f e n d a n t and n o t t o compensate t h e p l a i n t i f f , w e f i n d t h a t s u c h a n award b e a r s no r e a s o n a b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s conduct. T h e r e f o r e , w e h o l d t h a t p u n i t i v e damages c a n n o t be reduced by t h e p e r c e n t a g e of p l a i n t i f f ' s c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e . T h i s h o l d i n g i s s u p p o r t e d by o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s . P i p e l i n e Co. v. Montgomery (W.D. 1268; Tampa E l e c t r i c Co. v . S t o n e Corp. (M.D. Fla., Tampa Div., Arnoco Ok. 1 9 8 0 ) , 487 F.Supp. & Webster E n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 7 3 ) , 367 F.Supp. 27. The compensatory damages of $850 a r e reduced by p l a i n t i f f ' s c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e i n t h e amount of s i x t e e n percent. The p u n i t i v e damage award i n t h e amount of $80,000 is a f f i r m e d in t o t a l . T h i s c a s e i s remanded t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t w i t h d i r e c t i o n s t o e n t e r judgment a c c o r d i n g l y . W e concur: : T f i & d 9-1 L L jU ) 4. k/J Chief n / I us tick , -
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.
