 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[W] Webb Wheel Products12/30/2004
a. 1998). In Kmart, this Court held that it applies stricter scrutiny to a mental-anguish-damages award, especially where the plaintiff has offered little or no direct evidence concerning the degree of suffering he or she has experienced. In connection with his claim for mental anguish, Hanvey testified that he was discouraged and depressed when he looked daily for work and was not able to find a job, that he felt worthless, that he was not able to adequately support his family, that he had to borrow money from his parents and friends, that he and his wife were forced to live with various family members, that his vehicles were repossessed, that he was not able to provide Christmas gifts for his family in 2000, and that he was not able to pay the medical expenses for the birth of his first child, expenses that were paid by Medicaid. Had Webb Wheel argued that it was not liable for damages after November 1, the foregoing testimony clearly would not have supported that portion of the $80,000 that must be attributable to mental-anguish damages here, for almost all of that testimony relates to events that occurred after November 1, when Hanvey admits he would have been laid off. Likewise, we have no basis to apply the strict-scrutiny standard of Kmart to the portion of the award allocable to mental anguish for events occurring after November 1. See also Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Jeter, 832 So. 2d 25, 36 (Ala. 2001) (reducing a mental-anguish-damages award where the plaintiff's emotional suffering was for a limited period).
Webb Wheel's only challenge to the compensatory-damages award is based on its argument that it should not be liable for lost wages after March 2001, when it attempted to recall Hanvey. The jury was free to reject the argument that the lost-wages claim should be reduced after Webb Wheel's attempted recall. The jury was charged on mitigation of damages and was at liberty to conclude that Hanvey was justified in rejecting Webb Wheel's offer based on his testimony that he no longer trusted the company. Absent an affirmative showing that the jury ignored the trial court's instruction to consider Hanvey's duty to mitigate his damages, error cannot be presumed on appeal where the trial court properly charged the jury regarding such duty. See Empiregas, Inc. v. Hardy, 487 So. 2d 244 (Ala. 1985). Therefore, we affirm that aspect of the judgment based on the $80,000 compensatory-damages award.
B. Punitive Damages
The evidence that Webb Wheel discharged Hanvey solely because he filed a workers' compensation claim was sharply contested in this case. Nevertheless, as we have previously concluded, the jury had before it substantial evidence to support Hanvey's claim that he was discharged and not laid off, and that he was discharged solely because of his having filed a workers' compensation claim. In addition to the compensatory-damages award, the jury awarded Hanvey $400,000 in punitive damages.
Webb Wheel, as previously noted, does not contend that Hanvey's unequivocal acknowledgment that he would have been laid off 13 days after he was discharged, based upon what must be considered an entirely legitimate workforce reduction under the overwhelming evidence, restricted Hanvey's compensatory damages for lost wages and mental anguish to a period of no more than 13 days. Indeed, in its brief, Webb Wheel has conceded the propriety of calculating damages for lost wages and mental anguish for the period running to the date of the attempted recall in March 2001, some five months after Hanvey ceased to be an employee. While we cannot reverse the award of compensatory damages based upon a much longer time period, we are nevertheless required to review the award of punitive damag
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|