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: September 21, 1981
Decided : V ..
3Cr r i ?98F OCT 1 4 1947
Filed:
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, raises t h e f o l l o w i n g
issue:
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 . The
r u l e i s well-established i n Montana t h a t , r e g a r d i n g matters
". . . w i t h 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. 513, 520,
487 P.2d 515, 518-519, q u o t i n g Schwnacher v . Murray H o s p i t a l
( 1 9 2 0 ) , 58 Mont. 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 judg-
ment. 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 , (sub-
j 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 circum-
s 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
E. 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 . "
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
S t - R e p . 499. 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
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
recovery. 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 .
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 compara-
t 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 re-
duced 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 . Arnoco
P i p e l i n e Co. v. Montgomery (W.D. Ok. 1 9 8 0 ) , 487 F.Supp.
1268; Tampa E l e c t r i c Co. v . S t o n e & Webster E n g i n e e r i n g
Corp. (M.D. Fla., Tampa Div., 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 us tick
n
/ I
,-