Case Title: C & C TRUCKING CO. v. Smith

Citation: 612 So. 2d 1092

Docket Number: 90-CA-0366

State: mississippi

Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Date: 1992-12-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
612 So. 2d 1092 (1992) C & C TRUCKING COMPANY and Bill Lambert v. Fred SMITH. No. 90-CA-0366. Supreme Court of Mississippi. December 17, 1992. *1095 John A. Ferrell, Booneville, for appellant. R.K. Houston, Bay Springs, for appellee. Before the court en banc. SULLIVAN, Justice, for the Court: This appeal arises from a malicious prosecution case in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial District of Jasper County, Mississippi. The jury returned a verdict in the amount of $25,000 actual or compensatory damages and $50,000 punitive damages in favor of Fred Smith (Smith) against C & C Trucking Company (C & C) and Bill Lambert (Lambert).[1] C & C and Lambert filed their motion for remittitur, or in the alternative, motion for new trial on the issue of damages only. They also filed their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict of the jury, or in the alternative, a motion for a new trial.[2] The trial court sustained the motion for JNOV in favor of Lambert on the ground that the jury was not informed of Lambert's net worth. The remaining motions of C & C and Lambert were overruled. Feeling aggrieved, C & C and Lambert appeal to this Court and assign the following as error: 1. Was the evidence of malice and want of probable cause legally insufficient to sustain a verdict against the defendants; 2. Was it contrary to law for the trial court to submit the issue of punitive damages to the jury when the proof showed C & C's worth to be zero; and 3. Was the verdict of $25,000 actual damages and $50,000 punitive damages against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and so grossly excessive as to be shocking, evincing bias, passion and prejudice? Smith cross-appeals and assigns one error: 1. That the trial court erred in granting Lambert a JNOV on punitive damages. C & C is a Mississippi corporation, domiciled in Prentiss County. Prior to 1986 and early 1987, the corporation was engaged in the business of trucking various commodities from place to place intrastate and interstate. C & C corporate stock was owned equally by Thomas H. Comer, Jr., a practicing attorney, and Phillip Cole, then Chancery Clerk of Prentiss County. Lambert was an employee of and dispatcher for the corporation who, together with Johnny *1096 Duncan, discharged the responsibilities of day-to-day business operations. In 1986, Smith owned a 1976 model Kenworth tractor with 44-foot refrigerated trailer used to transport commodities. Smith entered into a verbal lease agreement with Lambert who acted for and on behalf of C & C. Under the agreement, Smith leased his tractor and trailer to C & C and agreed to haul for them with C & C providing the contract and hauling permits. C & C also agreed to obtain insurance for Smith's tractor and trailer and deduct the premiums from Smith's accumulating income. Latrell Smith (Latrell), son of Smith, drove and operated the vehicle. On the night of October 5, 1986, Smith's truck was parked on the C & C parking lot. Sometime during the night, it was vandalized. According to Lambert: Latrell discovered the entry and ensuing damage to the truck when he arrived at the C & C parking lot preparatory to departing with a load of processed imported Plum Rose hams scheduled for delivery in Alabama and Florida. Lambert and Latrell were able to get the truck running by hot wiring it and putting the truck on manual pump. Latrell left the C & C parking lot at approximately 1:00 o'clock on the morning of October 6 for the purpose of making the contractual deliveries. The testimony of the parties concerning subsequent events are for the most part irreconcilable. Smith testified that about 2:30 or 3:00 o'clock a.m. on Monday morning, October 6, 1986, he received a call from Latrell relating that he was in Hamilton, Alabama, and the rig loaded with hams had become inoperable. Latrell also stated that immediately prior to his departure from the C & C parking lot, Lambert had informed him no insurance of any kind existed on the tractor and trailer. Smith and his wife left their home in the town of Louin and drove to Hamilton, Alabama. Smith testified as follows: After eating breakfast, Smith called Lambert and told him the truck was "broke down," inoperable, and Lambert needed to come and get his load. Smith further testified: Smith said that Lambert had about 25 telephone conversations with him that day. In all, Lambert insisted that Smith deliver the load. On October 7, C & C dispatched a truck and driver to Smith's home in Louin where the contents of Smith's trailer were off loaded into the C & C trailer. At that time, Smith states that he was not aware of the institution by Thomas H. Comer, Jr., attorney for C & C, of criminal proceedings for embezzlement in the Justice Court in Prentiss County. These proceedings were begun against Smith by affidavit executed by attorney Comer on October 6, 1986. The affidavit charged that Smith "did embezzle or fraudulently secrete, conceal and convert to his own use the goods, rights in action, effects, valuable security of C & C Trucking Company." The affidavit was made as a result of representations made to Attorney Comer by Lambert. A felony warrant was issued for the arrest of Smith. On Wednesday afternoon, October 8, 1986, Smith was arrested and incarcerated in the Jasper County Jail where he remained for approximately three to three and one-half hours prior to making bond in the sum of $10,000 returnable before the Justice Court judge in Prentiss County where the charges were filed. Jasper County Sheriff Tom Green testified that during the interim between the morning of October 6 and the evening of October 7, he talked to Lambert. His recounting of that conversation follows: Smith's witnesses vowed that he is a religious person and before his arrest, he frequently sang in the church and led in prayer and had a lovely relationship with his wife of 34 years; that the arrest completely devastated Smith causing his whole life to change. His relationship with former friends and acquaintances deteriorated. These witnesses testified that Smith had become withdrawn, that he and his wife had serious domestic problems and he had lost a lot of sleep and weight. Smith testified that subsequent to his arrest and incarceration, he could not get employment and failing to meet his monetary obligations, he was forced into bankruptcy. Smith stated: The deputy sheriff who arrested Smith stated: On October 18, 1986, a Prentiss County Justice Court judge bound Smith over to await the action of the Prentiss County Grand Jury on the felonious charge of embezzlement. No action was taken by the subsequent Prentiss County Grand Jury and none had been taken through the date of the trial of the cause on February 28, 1989. Attorney Comer admitted that he did not attend Smith's preliminary hearing and did not make an effort to go before the Grand Jury. Comer testified as follows: Consideration of the issue implicates our limited scope of review of jury verdicts. Where, as here, the trial judge has refused to grant a motion for JNOV, we examine all of the evidence not just evidence which supports the non-movant's case in the light most favorable to the party opposed to the motion. All credible evidence tending to support the non-movant's case and all favorable inferences reasonably drawn therefrom are accepted as true and redound to the benefit of the non-mover. If the facts and inferences so considered point so overwhelmingly in favor of the movant that reasonable men could not have arrived at a contrary verdict, the motion should be granted. On the other hand, if there is substantial evidence opposed to the motion, that is, evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fairminded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions, the jury verdict should be allowed to stand and the motion denied, and, if it has been so denied, we have no authority to reverse. Royal Oil Co., Inc. v. Wells, 500 So. 2d 439, 442 (Miss. 1986); Stubblefield v. Jesco, Inc., 464 So. 2d 47, 54 (Miss. 1984); City of Jackson v. Locklar, 431 So. 2d 475, 478 (Miss. 1983); Paymaster Oil Mill Co. v. Mitchell, 319 So. 2d 652, 657 (Miss. 1975). The principles are as applicable in malicious prosecution cases as any other. Royal Oil Co., Inc., 500 So. 2d at 443; Owens v. Kroger Co., 430 So. 2d 843, 848 (Miss. 1983); Torabi v. J.C. Penney, Inc., 438 So. 2d 1354, 1355-56 (Miss. 1983); Gaylord's of Meridian, Inc. v. Sicard, 384 So. 2d 1042, 1044 (Miss. 1980). It is only when a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiff's case and again at the close of the defendant's case, would have been proper that a judgment notwithstanding the verdict is proper. Such is not the standard where the trial court is required *1099 to use its discretion in granting a motion for a new trial. The variance in proof needed to support these motions is easily explained when one recognizes that a JNOV terminates the case, whereas a new trial simply gives both parties the opportunity to relitigate the controversy. Stubblefield, 464 So. 2d at 55. Motions for JNOV are made pursuant to Rule 50(b) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. Motions for a new trial are made pursuant to Rule 59. The concurring opinion in Jesco, Inc. v. Whitehead, 451 So. 2d 706, 714-17 (Miss. 1984), points out the differences between the motions: We proceed with application of our scope of review to the appellate issues. We have, on several occasions, articulated the elements of malicious criminal prosecution as: (1) The institution or continuation of original judicial proceedings, either criminal or civil; (2) By, or at the insistence of the defendants; (3) The termination of such proceeding in plaintiff's favor; (4) Malice in instituting the proceedings; (5) Want of probable cause for the proceedings; and *1100 (6) The suffering of damages as a result of the action or prosecution complained of. Strong v. Nicholson, 580 So. 2d 1288, 1293 (Miss. 1991); Miss. Road Supply v. Zurich-American Ins. Co., 501 So. 2d 412 (Miss. 1987); Royal Oil Co., Inc. v. Wells, 500 So. 2d 439, 442 (Miss. 1986); Pugh v. Easterling, 367 So. 2d 935, 937 (Miss. 1979). C & C and Lambert focus their attention on elements (4) and (5) conceding establishment of the remaining elements. In determining whether malice existed in the institution of the criminal proceedings, we note that the term "malice" in the law of malicious prosecution is used in an artificial and legal sense and is applied to prosecutions instituted primarily for a purpose other than that of bringing an offender to justice. Benjamin v. Hooper Electronic Supply Co., 568 So. 2d 1182, 1191 (Miss. 1990). It may be proved by circumstantial evidence or the jury may infer malice from the facts of the case. Moreover, absence of probable cause for the prosecution is circumstantial evidence of malice. Further, malice may be inferred from a finding that the defendant acted in reckless disregard of another person's rights. In Strong v. Nicholson, 580 So. 2d 1288 (Miss. 1991), malice existed where the defendants freely conceded that their lone purpose in instituting criminal proceedings was to "get their stuff back" and that they really didn't care what happened to plaintiffs. We have emphasized that since the question of malice is a question of fact, it is to be determined by the jury unless only one conclusion may reasonably be drawn from the evidence. Benjamin, 568 So. 2d at 1191; Owens v. Kroger Co., 430 So. 2d 843, 848 (Miss. 1983), [quoting Brown v. Watkins, 213 Miss. 365, 373, 56 So. 2d 888, 891 (1952)]. In this case, the testimony of Sheriff Green established that C & C and Lambert weren't "really interested in the warrant being served, they were interested in the load getting moved." The testimony was sufficient to undergird the jury's finding as a matter of fact that malice existed. This portion of the assigned error is without merit. Probable cause requires the concurrence of an honest belief in the guilt of the person accused and reasonable grounds for such belief. Strong, 580 So. 2d at 1294; Royal Oil Co., Inc. v. Wells, 500 So. 2d 439, 443 (Miss. 1986); Harvill v. Tabor, 240 Miss. 750, 755, 128 So. 2d 863, 865 (1961). While a malicious prosecution plaintiff has the burden of production and persuasion of showing lack of probable cause, proof of lack of probable cause on any one element of the crime charged and which forms the basis of the action is sufficient to establish this element of the tort. Strong, 580 So. 2d at 1294-95. Lambert testified that he thought Smith was going to sell and dispose of the load as follows: On cross-examination, Lambert admitted Smith never said that he was converting the load to his own use. Smith testified that from day one he requested Lambert to send someone to get the load. It is apparent that neither Lambert nor Attorney Comer were in possession of facts from which it could be reasonably inferred that Smith had converted the load, a fact essential to the charge of embezzlement. Lack of probable cause on this one element of embezzlement is sufficient to establish this requisite of the tort. Strong, 580 So. 2d at 1295. Moreover, the question is not whether Lambert thought probable cause existed, but whether the fact finders thought he did. Strong, 580 So. 2d at 1294. The evidence is sufficient to sustain the finding by the jury of lack of probable cause for the criminal proceedings instituted against Smith. This portion of the assigned error is also without merit. C & C contends on appeal that the trial court erred in submitting the issue of punitive damages to the jury when the uncontradicted proof showed C & C's net worth to be zero. Smith asserts on cross-appeal that the trial court erred in granting Lambert a JNOV nullifying the award of punitive damages because the jury was not informed of his net worth. While the record is not clear pertaining to C & C's net worth it does disclose that after Lambert testified, the parties stipulated into the record that "if Bill Lambert were to take the witness stand his testimony would be that his personal net worth is zero." The record shows that Lambert terminated his employment with C & C in 1986 and at the time of trial was employed by Attorney Comer as a paralegal with earnings of $120.00 per week. C & C discontinued their hauling operation in 1986 subsequent to the filing of the tort action. The corporation was dissolved in 1987. Phillip Cole, major stockholder of C & C, obtained the corporate ICC authority as well as the three trailers of the entity and began operating a trucking company in his own name. C & C and Lambert argue that Smith's failure to prove some net worth on their part precludes an award of punitive damages. They rely on Whittington v. Whittington, 535 So. 2d 573 (Miss. 1988); T.C.L., Inc. v. Lacoste, 431 So. 2d 918 (Miss. 1983); Gaylord's of Meridian, Inc. v. Sicard, 384 So. 2d 1042 (Miss. 1980); First National Bank of Iuka v. Mitchell, 359 So. 2d 1376 (Miss. 1978); and Snowden v. Osborne, 269 So. 2d 858 (Miss. 1972). An examination of these cases indicates at first blush that we have applied this standard at least since Snowden. We again consider the rationale undergirding approval of awards of punitive damages. In Redden, Punitive Damages, § 5.2(A)(24), p. 356 (1980), we are told that in Mississippi: These precepts have been followed in Wirtz v. Switzer, 586 So. 2d 775, 783 (Miss. 1991), T.C.L. v. Lacoste, 431 So. 2d at 923 and Standard Life Ins. Co. of Indiana v. Veal, 354 So. 2d 239 (Miss. 1977). Punitive damages are properly allowed where the tort complained of was malicious, wanton, wilful, or capricious. Royal Oil Co., Inc., 500 So. 2d at 450; Yazoo & M.V.R. Co. v. Williams, 87 Miss. 344, 355, 39 So. 489, 491 (1905); see also Newsom v. Henry, 443 So. 2d 817, 824 (Miss. 1983); T.G. Blackwell Chevrolet Co. v. Eshee, 261 So. 2d 481, 485 (Miss. 1972); Friendly Finance Co. of Biloxi, Inc. v. Mallett, 243 So. 2d 403, 406 (Miss. 1971). Further, a finding of malice will give rise to an assessment of punitive damages. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Day, 487 So. 2d 830 (Miss. 1986); Weems v. American Security Insurance Co., 486 So. 2d 1222, 1226 (Miss. 1986). In determining the propriety of submitting the issue of punitive damages to the jury, the trial court decides whether, under the totality of the circumstances and viewing the defendant's conduct in the aggregate, a reasonable, hypothetical trier of fact could find either malice or gross neglect/reckless disregard. Colonial Mortgage Co., Inc. v. Lee, 525 So. 2d 804, 808 (Miss. 1988). According to 22 Am.Jur.2d 986 § 953 (1988), the following rules apply where punitive damages are recoverable: The rules articulated in Am.Jur.2d do not require proof of net worth prerequisite to an award of punitive damages. Snowden v. Osborne is the first case of recent vintage suggesting the effect of failure to prove a defendant's worth when the amount of an award for punitive damages is challenged. In Snowden, we stated: Snowden, 269 So. 2d at 861. In First American Nat. Bank of Iuka, we used Snowden as a reference point, reversed because punitive damages were grossly excessive and stated: First American, 359 So. 2d at 1381. In Gaylord's of Meridian, we again reversed an award of punitive damages and embellished on our prior pronouncements by enunciating: Gaylord's, 384 So. 2d at 1045. Finally in Whittington v. Whittington, we reversed an appeal awarding $40,000 punitive damages on a defendant's cross-claim and stated: Whittington, 535 So. 2d at 584. T.C.L., Inc., Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Tompkins, 490 So. 2d 897 (Miss. 1986), Bankers Life & Casualty Co., First American National Bank of Iuka, and Snowden were cited as authorities for the pronouncement. For whatever reason, we have failed to follow traditional rules from Snowden to Whittington. Literal adherence to a requirement of proof of net worth prerequisite to an award of punitive damages results in a defendant with zero net worth being ipso facto excluded and absolved from payment of such damages. We fail to see the reason underlying such a rule. Moreover, in Collins v. Black, 380 So. 2d 241 (Miss. 1980), we stated, "The pecuniary ability to respond to a verdict for punitive damages may be considered by a jury, but it is not the sole factor to be considered by them."[3] In Aaron v. Rinaldi, 296 So. 2d 632 (Fla. App. 1974), the following issue was certified to the District Court of Appeals, Third District: The Florida Court of Appeals held that evidence of the defendant's financial worth is not a predicate for award of punitive damages and opined: 296 So. 2d at 633-34. The cause was reviewed by the Florida Supreme Court on writ of certiorari in Rinaldi v. Aaron, 314 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 1975). On review, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals and articulated: 314 So. 2d at 765. In Evans v. Thompson, 762 P.2d 754 (Colo.Ct. of App., Div. II, 1988), the Colorado Appeal Court considered the necessity of evidence regarding the defendant's economic status as an essential element of proof for exemplary damages. In reversing the action of the trial court granting a JNOV, and holding that such proof was not a prerequisite to an award the court opined: 762 P.2d at 755. In Papcun v. Piggy Bag Discount Souvenirs, Food & Gas Corporation, 472 So. 2d 880 (Fla.App. 5th Dist. 1985), the Florida Appeals Court addressed the issue of the necessity of defendant's net worth as a prerequisite to a punitive damage award. In holding that net worth proof, while admissible, is not a requisite to an award, the court stated: 314 So. 2d at 765. 472 So. 2d at 882. The Rinaldi and Papcun decisions were followed in Rety v. Green, 546 So. 2d 410 (Fla.App. 3 Dist. 1989). In Rety, the appeal court also intoned: In Woods-Drake v. Lundy, 667 F.2d 1198, 1203 (N. 9) (5th Cir.1980), the federal court placed the burden on the defendant to produce financial evidence which might be considered in mitigation of punitive damages. We hold that it is not legally necessary for either plaintiff or defendant to introduce evidence of the net worth of the defendant during the trial to support an award of punitive damages. If, however, no such evidence is presented, neither party may challenge on appeal either the inadequacy or the excessiveness of a punitive damages award. If a party wishes to preserve the question for appeal, evidence of net worth must be presented at trial, or error in the amount of punitive damages is waived. In Whittington, we set out the various considerations approved by the Court in assessing punitive damages: Whittington, 535 So. 2d at 583-84. We reaffirm these accepted considerations in making punitive assessment but reject the expressions in the cases of Snowden, First Nat. Bank of Iuka, T.C.L., Inc., Gaylord's of Meridian, Inc. and Whittington that proof of net worth is prerequisite to an award of punitive damages. To the *1106 extent that any of the cases hold otherwise, they are overruled. Neither the stipulation of the parties to the effect that Lambert had a zero net worth nor failure of the record to clearly show C & C's net worth changes the result, because a jury may properly assess punitive damages to a party having no net worth. To hold otherwise would license those meeting this criterion to contravene legal standards without corresponding liability. Moreover, the financial worth of a defendant is only one of the various considerations in assessing punitive damages. The trial court did not err in submitting the issue of punitive damages to the jury. On the other hand Smith's assertion via cross appeal of trial court error in granting Lambert a J.N.O.V. on the ground that the jury was not informed of his net worth bears merit. C & C and Lambert's argument pertaining to the damages awarded by the jury is subject to our oft stated scope of review: Royal Oil Co., Inc., 500 So. 2d at 449. Prior to his arrest for embezzlement, a crime involving moral turpitude, Smith possessed an excellent reputation for honesty and community service. He was known for his church work and was often requested to pray and sing solos, taking an active part in congregation activities. Smith was known for his outgoing personality. He was talkative and bursting with energy, being a healthy individual with a happy marriage of more than thirty-four years. His arrest and incarceration for the crime of embezzlement started rumors in the small community where he resided. As a result, he ceased to participate in church affairs. He became withdrawn, having little to do with former friends and neighbors. He lost weight. Marital problems escalated between Smith and his wife. He became depressed and no longer found any joy in living. His attitude and feelings were shown in the following statement: It would be difficult to visualize or describe the mental anguish and emotional distress suffered by Smith. Smith was entitled to recover damages for harm to his reputation resulting from the criminal proceedings brought against him. He was also entitled to recover for mental anguish and distress causally resulting from the proceedings. Royal Oil Co., Inc., 500 So. 2d at 448; Gandy v. Palmer, 251 Miss. 398, 169 So. 2d 819 (1964); State Life Ins. *1107 Co. of Indianapolis v. Hardy, 189 Miss. 266, 195 So. 708 (1940). The very nature of damages often sustained in malicious prosecution actions makes such damages difficult to quantify in monetary terms. We have carefully reviewed the evidence of damages suffered by Smith and, keeping in mind the nature of damages in malicious prosecution actions as well as the difficulty in quantifying such damages in monetary terms, we find the jury verdict of $25,000 for actual damages is supported by the evidence. In considering the assertion of an excessive punitive damage award, we remain mindful of our former expressions that we are not authorized to disturb a jury verdict regarding punitive damages because it "seems too high" or "seems too low." Only where the verdict is so excessive that it evinces passion, bias and prejudice on the part of the jury so as to shock the judicial conscience may we interfere. Life Insurance Co. of Mississippi v. Allen, 518 So. 2d 1189, 1194 (Miss. 1987); Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Crenshaw, 483 So. 2d 254, 277-79 (Miss. 1985). We also observe that the factors related in Whittington, Mutual Life Ins. v. Estate of Wesson, 517 So. 2d 521, 532 (Miss. 1987), and Bankers Life and Casualty Co. for consideration by a jury in determining the quantum of punitive damages are inclusive and not exclusive. In 22 Am.Jur.2d Damages § 807, p. 854, (1988) the following rule is stated: "In assessing exemplary damages, the trier of fact should consider the nature, extent, and enormity of the wrong, the intent of the party committing it, and, generally, all the circumstances attending the particular occurrence." Other factors have been approved. In Ford Motor Co. v. Durrill, 714 S.W.2d 329 (Texas Civ.App. 1986), the Texas Appeals Court considered the following factors in arriving at the award: (1) nature of the wrong; (2) character of the conduct involved; (3) degree of culpability of wrongdoer; (4) situation and sensibilities of parties concerned; (5) extent to which such conduct offends a public sense of justice and propriety; and (6) the proportion that the punitive award bears to the compensatory damages. The exigency of each case determines the parameters of appropriate factors for jury consideration. No formulation of precise rules of law have been made to determine whether an award of punitive damages is excessive. No fixed legal ratio between actual and punitive damage exists. No bright line of demarcation tells us when exemplary damages are excessive. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to state a rule with absolute precision. Redden, Punitive Damages, § 2.1(C), p. 23 (2d ed. 1989) tells us: After careful consideration of the record, we cannot say that the verdict is so excessive that it evinces such passion, bias, and prejudice on the part of the jury that our judicial conscience is shocked. We find the errors assigned by C & C and Lambert on appeal to be without merit and affirm on direct appeal. However, we find merit in Smith's cross-appeal. Because the trial court erred in granting Lambert a JNOV, this action by the trial court is reversed and the jury verdict is reinstated. AFFIRMED ON DIRECT APPEAL; REVERSED AND RENDERED ON CROSS-APPEAL. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., HAWKINS and DAN M. LEE, P.JJ. and PRATHER, PITTMAN, BANKS and McRAE, JJ., concur. ROBERTS, J., not participating. [1] Smith recovered $1,753.59 in the same action for breach of contract. The issues involved in this appeal do not relate to or concern this portion of the trial court judgment. [2] The grounds for the motion were (a) failure of Smith to prove elements of malicious prosecution; (b) Smith failed to prove the net worth of defendants; and (c) the jury verdict was contrary to and against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and evinced bias, passion and prejudice on the part of the jury. [3] For a list of the states and cases holding the defendant's financial circumstances is a relevant factor for consideration in assessing the amount of punitive damages, but such evidence is not prerequisite to an award, see 87 A.L.R. 4th 166, Punitive Damages: Wealth Factor, § 4 (1991).