 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Oliver v. Towns3/10/2000
ndicate that a plaintiff must present a significant amount of evidence to show the affects of the mental anguish before she can receive a mental-anguish award measured in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Reviewing the record, we find that the only evidence regarding Towns's claimed mental anguish is her testimony that she suffered "a lot of [mental anguish]" and that she had to seek counseling because of her worry over losing the opportunity to buy a house. The record contains no evidence from the counselor relating to Towns's mental anguish. It is apparent to us that while Towns did offer more evidence than the plaintiff in Foster offered, she did not offer much more. She simply did not present enough evidence to support a compensatory-damages award of $500,000 when her actual monetary loss was only $7,200. In light of Kyles and Foster, we see no reason why the compensatory damages in this case should exceed $75,000.
Next, we must consider the punitive-damages award of $249,000. When compared to a compensatory-damages award of $75,000, the ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages is slightly higher than 3:1. This case involves an attorney who misappropriated the proceeds of a client's settlement check. Because of this particularly reprehensible act, we cannot hold that the $249,000 punitive award is excessive.
We affirm the punitive-damages award of $249,000. We also affirm the award of compensatory damages on the condition that the plaintiff file with this Court, within 30 days, a remittitur reducing the compensatory-damages award to the sum of $75,000; otherwise, the damages awards will be reversed and the case remanded.
AFFIRMED WITH RESPECT TO THE PUNITIVE-DAMAGES AWARD; AFFIRMED CONDITIONALLY WITH RESPECT TO THE COMPENSATORY-DAMAGES AWARD.
Hooper, C.J., and Maddox, Lyons, Brown, and England, JJ., concur.
Johnstone, J., concurs specially.
Cook and See, JJ., concur in the result. JOHNSTONE, Justice (concurring specially).
While I disagree with the main opinion in its citation of Kmart Corp. v. Kyles, 723 So. 2d 572 (Ala. 1998), for the reasons stated in my special writing in Delchamps, Inc. v. Bryant, 738 So. 2d 824, 841-43 (Ala. 1999), the rationale of the main opinion in the case presently before us regarding remittitur of the compensatory damages including mostly mental anguish is consistent with the test I suggested in my Delchamps special writing at 738 So. 2d 843. Paraphrasing that test, the evidence of mental anguish in the case before us is not of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment could reasonably infer the existence of $500,000 worth of damage to be compensated. On the other hand, the evidence in the case before us, all factors considered, is of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment could reasonably infer the existence of $75,000 worth of damage to be compensated, the quantum to which the main opinion remits the compensatory damage award. I agree with the main opinion that the plaintiff "simply did not present enough evidence to support a compensatory-damages award of $500,000 when her actual monetary loss was only $7,200."
Page 1 2 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|