Mobile Infirmary Mudical Center v. Hodgen10/31/2003
ongful-death actions, and actions alleging the intentional infliction of physical injury. Section 6-11-21(a), (b), (d), (h), and (j), Ala. Code 1975. Section 6-11-21, Ala. Code 1975, as so amended, has been recognized as a complete replacement of the old statutory restrictions on punitive damages. See Morris v. Laster, 821 So. 2d 923, 927 (Ala. 2001).
The fundamental principle of statutory construction is that words in a statute must be given their plain meaning. See Simcala, Inc. v. American Coal Trade, Inc., 821 So. 2d 197, 202 (Ala. 2001)(citing Ex parte Smallwood, 811 So. 2d 537, 539 (Ala. 2001); Ex parte Krothapalli, 762 So. 2d 836, 838 (Ala. 2000); and IMED Corp. v. Systems Eng'g Assocs. Corp., 602 So. 2d 344, 346 (Ala. 1992)); Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. Seven Up Bottling Co. of Jasper, Inc., 746 So. 2d 966, 969 (Ala. 1999)(citing John Deere Co. v. Gamble, 523 So. 2d 95 (Ala. 1988)). Section 6-11-21(d), Ala. Code 1975, provides:
"(d) Except as provided in subsection (j), in all civil actions for physical injury wherein entitlement to punitive damages shall have been established under applicable laws, no award of punitive damages shall exceed three times the compensatory damages of the party claiming punitive damages or one million five hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000), whichever is greater."
(Emphasis added.) As noted above, the only exclusions from this cap on punitive-damages awards for claims alleging physical injury are class actions, wrongful-death actions, and actions alleging the intentional infliction of physical injury. The wording of this statute, i.e., that it applies to "all civil actions," clearly encompasses actions alleging physical injury caused by medical malpractice. Although the Legislature excluded from this statute certain types of claims, the statute makes no mention of excluding actions brought pursuant to the AMLA. Because the Legislature, with knowledge of this Court's holding as to § 6-5-544(b), Ala. Code 1975, enacted a new statutory cap on punitive damages that clearly encompasses claims brought pursuant to the AMLA, we decline Mobile Infirmary's invitation to revisit the Moore decision, despite the erosion of its holdings, and to reinstate § 6-5-544(b), Ala. Code 1975.
V.
Mobile Infirmary argues that the trial court erred in refusing to apply the cap on punitive damages established in § 6-11-21(d), Ala. Code 1975, to the $2,250,000 punitive-damages award in this case. As noted in Part IV of this opinion, § 6-11-21(d) provides that, subject to an exception not applicable to this proceeding, "in all civil actions for physical injury wherein entitlement to punitive damages shall have been established under applicable laws, no award of punitive damages shall exceed three times the compensatory damages of the party claiming punitive damages or one million five hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000), whichever is greater."
The trial court in its order denying Mobile Infirmary's postjudgment motion cited Life Insurance Co. of Georgia v. Smith, 719 So. 2d 797, 814-15 (Ala. 1998), in which this Court discussed in detail the circumstance under which a nominal damages award would nevertheless permit a substantial punitive-damages award. This Court stated in Smith:
"In instances where punitive damages also are awarded, a court can consider, in any post-verdict analysis of the relationship between the compensatory damages award and the punitive damages award, the total amount of compensatory damages for which the defendant could have been liable but for the plaintiff's having been made whole, regardless of how the plaintiff was made whole."
719 So. 2d at 806. The trial court then decl
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|