Case Title: ALLERS v WILLIS

Citation: 

Docket Number: 81-379

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1982-04-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 81-379 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA -~ - THEODORE R . ALLERS, Plaintiff and Respondent, VS. RICHARD JOSEPH WILLIS, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, In and for the County of Flathead Honorable Robert Sykes, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Warden, Christiansen, Johnson & Berg, Kalispell, Montana For Respondent: Hoyt and Trieweiler, Great Falls, Montana Submitted on briefs: February 25, 1982 Decided : 1 5 1 Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e C o u r t . The r e s p o n d e n t , Theodore A l l e r s , b r o u g h t an a c t i o n i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e E l e v e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t o f t h e S t a t e of Montana, i n and f o r t h e County o f F l a t h e a d , by c o m p l a i n t d a t e d J u n e 1 8 , 1979, a l l e g i n g t h a t on J a n u a r y 21, 1979, he was i n j u r e d and s u s t a i n e d p r o p e r t y damage i n a c o l l i s i o n between h i s c a r and a t r u c k d r i v e n by a p p e l l a n t , Richard W i l l i s . R e s p o n d e n t ' s c o m p l a i n t a l l e g e d t h a t t h e c a u s e o f t h e a c c i d e n t was t h e n e g l i g e n c e o f t h e a p p e l l a n t i n d r i v i n g h i s v e h i c l e . On May 1 4 , 1980, t h e c o m p l a i n t was amended, and t h e r e s p o n d e n t r e q u e s t e d t h a t p u n i t i v e damages be awarded. On J u l y 2, 1980, a p p e l l a n t c o u n t e r c l a i m e d , a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t had a s s a u l t e d him immediately a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t e d r e s p o n d e n t ' s motion f o r summary judgment i n J u l y 1980 a s t o t h e a p p e l l a n t b e i n g n e g l i g e n t p e r se, b u t d e n i e d t h e motion a s t o p r o x i m a t e c a u s e , d a m a g e s and a l l m a t t e r s c o n c e r n i n g c o m p a r a t i v e ney 1 i g e n c e . A j u r y t r i a l was h e l d May 4 t h r o u g h 7 , 1981, and t h e j u r y r e n d e r e d a s p e c i a l v e r d i c t i n f a v o r o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t i n t h e amount o f $128,000 a c t u a l damages and $15,000 puni- t i v e damages f o r a t o t a l judgment o f $143,000. On May 22, 1981, t h e a p p e l l a n t moved t h e c o u r t f o r a new t r i a l on g r o u n d s o f e x c e s s i v e damages, i n s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e e v i d e n c e t o j u s t i f y t h e damages and e r r o r i n law. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n i e d t h e motion, and a p p e l l a n t a p p e a l e d t o t h i s C o u r t on J u l y 1 3 , 1981. A t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 12:15 a.m., on J a n u a r y 21, 1979, respondent, Theodore A l l e r s , was s t r u c k from behind by a pickup t r u c k being d r i v e n by t h e a p p e l l a n t , Richard J. W i l l i s . The a c c i d e n t occurred on U.S, Highway 40 i n Columbia F a l l s , Montana, near a r e s t a u r a n t known a s Todd's Cafe. The road is s t r a i g h t , l e v e l , paved and well l i g h t e d , but was v e r y i c y a t t h e time of t h e a c c i d e n t . A l l e r s , a t t h e time of t h e a c c i d e n t , was t r a v e l i n g e a s t approximately twenty t o twenty-f i v e m i l e s per hour and was p r e p a r i n g t o t u r n r i g h t i n t o Todd's Cafe f o r a cup of c o f f e e . H e was s t r u c k from behind, and t h e f o r c e was s u f - f i c i e n t t o t e a r t h e f r o n t s e a t mounts from t h e f l o o r where they were b o l t e d and t o propel h i s c a r a t l e a s t 120 f e e t i n t o a s t e e l pole 011 t h e s i d e of t h e road. Respondent's v e h i c l e was t o t a l e d , and a p p e l l a n t ' s t r u c k s u s t a i n e d approximately $1,000 i n damages. W i l l i s , by h i s own admission, had been d r i n k i n g a l c o h o l i c beverages s t e a d i l y f o r e i g h t h o u r s p r i o r t o t h e c o l l i s i o n . He t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had consumed somewhere between twelve and e i g h t e e n b e e r s and a t l e a s t two mixed d r i n k s i n t h e eight-hour period b e f o r e t h e c o l l i s i o n , H i s blood a l c o h o l c o n t e n t was found t o be .20% when a t e s t was a d m i n i s t e r e d a t t h e North Valley H o s p i t a l i n Columbia F a l l s . The c o l l i s i o n and t h e e v e n t s l e a d i n g up t o it were witnessed by Rhonda Coverdale, who was d r i v i n g her c a r e a s t on Highway 40 behind respondent, She t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t had p u l l e d onto t h e highway without s t o p p i n g , a c c e l e r a t e d r a p i d l y , f i s h t a i l e d and was going about f o r t y - f i v e m i l e s per hour a t t h e time of t h e c o l l i s i o n . The speed l i m i t was twenty-five m i l e s per hour. Also, she t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t d i d n o t use h i s b r a k e s or a t t e m p t t o swerve o u t of t h e way. Immediately af t e r t h e c o l l i s i o n , both men e x i t e d t h e i r v e h i c l e s and headed towards each o t h e r . A s c u f f l e ensued and A l l e r s s t r u c k W i l l i s i n t h e s h o u l d e r . Both men then ended up on t h e ground with A l l e r s on t o p t r y i n g t o hold down W i l l i s who was f l a i l i n g h i s arms and swearing. A l l e r s , Rhonda Coverdale and Michael S t o t t s , t h e o f f i c e r who i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e a c c i d e n t , a l l t e s t i f i e d t h a t W i l l i s was g r o s s l y i n t o x i c a t e d . O f f i c e r S t o t t s a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t W i l l i s had a r e p u t a t i o n i n t h e community o f becoming " b e l l i g e r e n t and p o s s i b l y v i o l e n t " a f t e r he had a l o t t o d r i n k . A l l e r s a l l e g e d t h a t h i s back and neck were perma- n e n t l y i n j u r e d by t h e automobile c o l l i s i o n . The i n j u r i e s were a l l e g e d t o be " c e r v i c a l and lumbrosachal r a d i c u l i t i s s e c o n d a r y t o s o f t t i s s u e s w e l l i n g , and i n j u r y t o t h e l i g a m e n t s and j o i n t c a p s u l e s i n t h o s e r e g i o n s of t h e s p i n e . " A s a r e s u l t , A l l e r s a l l e g e d t h a t he w i l l c o n t i n u e t o e x p e r i - ence pain f o r t h e r e s t of h i s l i f e whenever he p a r t i c i p a t e s i n s t r e n u o u s a c t i v i t i e s . A l l e r s was twenty-seven y e a r s o l d a t t h e time of t h e a c c i d e n t and had been a manual l a b o r e r h i s e n t i r e a d u l t l i f e . A l l e r s was n o t a b l e t o go back t o work u n t i l s i x months a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t when h i s p h y s i c i a n r e l e a s e d him. The evidence r e v e a l e d t h a t A l l e r s was still e x p e r i e n c i n g pain when a t work and t h r e e months l a t e r , on October 1 4 , 1979, he f e l l and r e i n j u r e d h i s back. He has n o t worked s i n c e . The i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d f o r d i s c u s s i o n a r e : 1. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d by excluding evidence of a pending workers' compensation claim? 2. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n d i s m i s s i n g a p p e l l a n t ' s c o u n t e r c l a i m f o r b a t t e r y ? 3. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n i n s t r u c t i n g t h e j u r y concerning l o s s of e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y ? 4. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n i n s t r u c t i n g t h e j u r y on p u n i t i v e damages? 5. Whether t h e v e r d i c t was e x c e s s i v e ? The D i s t r i c t Court p r o p e r l y excluded t h e evidence concerning a pending workers' compensation claim. The v a s t rnajority of j u r i s d i c t i o n s have r u l e d t h a t t h e p r e j u d i c i a l impact of allowing a j u r y t o r e c e i v e evidence of a p l a i n - t i f f ' s pending workers' compensation c l a i m v a s t l y outweighs t h e p r o b a t i v e v a l u e . 77 A.L.R.2d 1154, 1156; 47 A.L.R.3d 234; Pozzie v. Mike Smith, Inc. ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 33 Ill.App.3d 343, 337 N.E.2d 450. I t h a s been s t a t e d a t 77 A.L.R.2d a t 1156, "Generally, it h a s been held t o c o n s t i t u t e e r r o r , r e q u i r i n g a r e v e r s a l o r new t r i a l , t o b r i n g t o t h e j u r y ' s a t t e n t i o n t h e f a c t t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f i n a personal i n j u r y o r d e a t h a c t i o n is e n t i t l e d t o workmen's compensation b e n e f i t s . The c o u r t s have reasoned t h a t such i n f o r m a t i o n would tend t o p r e j u d i c e t h e j u r y and i n f l u e n c e t h e i r v e r d i c t , e i t h e r a s t o l i a b i l i t y o r damages, a s such i n f o r m a t i o n is o r d i n a r i l y immaterial and i r r e l e v a n t . " Here, t h e f a c t t h a t A l l e r s r e i n j u r e d h i s back a t work some t e n months a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t was p r o p e r l y admitted i n t o evidence, b u t t h e f a c t t h a t he had a pending workers' cornpensation claim was c l e a r l y i n a d m i s s i b l e . I t was n o t r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r when t h e D i s t r i c t Court dismissed a p p e l l a n t ' s c o u n t e r c l a i m f o r b a t t e r y . I n C o l l i n s v. I t o h ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 160 Mont. 461, 503 P.2d 3 6 , t h i s Court h e l d : "This Court, on a number of o c c a s i o n s , h a s s t a t e d t h a t c a s e s and i s s u e s should n o t he withdrawn from a j u r y u n l e s s r e a s o n a b l e and fair-minded men could reach o n l y one conclu- s i o n from t h e f a c t s . P i c k e t t v. Kyger, 151 Mont. 87, 439 P.2d 57; B r i d g e s v. Moritz, 149 Mont. 273, 425 P.2d 721; Holland v. Konda, 142 Mont. 536, 385 P.2d 272. Genuine i s s u e s of f a c t should be submitted t o t h e j u r y . However. w h e t h e r e v i d e n c e o n b e h a l f o f a ..................... p l a i n t i f f is s u f f i c i e n t t o t a k e a c a s e t o t h e j u r y i s a q u e s t i o n o f l a w f o r t h e t r i a l .................................. j udge . Lovas v , General Motors Corp. ( 6 C r ) , 212 F.2d 805. A b a r e s c i n t i l l a of e v i d e n c e i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o r e q u i r e ..................................... submission t o t h e jury. Volume 2B, Barron and H o l t z o f f , s e c t i o n 1075, and Johnson v. Chicago, Milwaukee and S t . Paul Ry. Co., 71 Mont. 390, 230 P. 52." 503 P.2d a t 42. (Emphasis added.) The o n l y evidence t h a t a p p e l l a n t p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l concerning t h e a l l e g e d b a t t e r y and h i s r e s u l t i n g r i b i n j u r y was h i s own testimony. However, even h i s testimony a t t h e t r i a l was c o n t r a r y t o h i s s t a t e m e n t s i n a p r e v i o u s d e p o s i t i o n . In t h e d e p o s i t i o n he s t a t e d t h a t he had i n j u r e d h i s r i b s a s a r e s u l t of t h e c o l l i s i o n , n o t a s a r e s u l t of a blow by respondent. F u r t h e r , a p p e l l a n t d i d n o t c a l l h i s p h y s i c i a n t o t h e s t a n d , and he r e f u s e d r e s p o n d e n t ' s p r e t r i a l d i s c o v e r y r e q u e s t t o produce t h e p h y s i c i a n ' s medical r e p o r t . The record was void of any c r e d i b l e evidence t h a t would l e a d a r e a s o n a b l e person t o b e l i e v e t h a t respondent caused appel- l a n t ' s r i b i n j u r y . A p p e l l a n t ' s c o u n t e r c l a i m was " f a n c i f u l , f r i v o l o u s , gauzy o r merely s u s p i c i o u s " even when c o n s t r u e d i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o him. Van Uden v. Hendricksen (1980) , - Mont. - , 615 P.2d 220, 224, 37 St.Rep. 1431. The D i s t r i c t Court d i d n o t e r r when i n s t r u c t i n g t h e j u r y concerning impairment of e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y . A p p e l l a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e respondent f a i l e d t o prove by l e g a l l y s u f f i c i e n t evidence t h a t t h e i n j u r i e s which he received were a t t r i b u t a b l e t o t h e automobile a c c i d e n t is without m e r i t . Impairment of e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y and t h e burden t o prove t h e same was well d e f i n e d by t h i s Court i n Thomas v. Whiteside ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 148 Mont. 394, 421 P.2d 449, where we s t a t e d : "Impairment of e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y is d i f f e r e n t from l o s s of wages. I t is t h e permanent d i m i n u t i o n of t h e a b i l i t y t o e a r n money i n t h e f u t u r e , The l o s s is a p a r t of g e n e r a l damages which may be i n f e r r e d from t h e n a t u r e of t h e i n j u r y w i t h o u t p r o o f o f a c t u a l e a r n - i n g s o r income. Proof of t h e i n j u r e d p e r s o n ' s p r e v i o u s h e a l t h , a g e , o c c u p a t i o n , s k i l l s , e d u c a t i o n , p r o b a b l e number of p r o d u c t i v e y e a r s remaining, p h y s i c a l and mental impair- ment proximately caused by t h e i n j u r y and s i m i l a r f a c t o r s a r e s u f f i c i e n t t o i n f e r a l o s s o f an e s t a b l i s h e d e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y . Connolly v. Pre-Mixed Concrete Co., 49 Cal.2d 483, 319 P.2d 343; Murray v , Mossman, 52 Wash.2d 8 8 5 , 329 P.2d 1089; J a c k s o n v. Southwestern P u b l i c S e r v i c e Co., 66 N.M. 458, 349 P.2d 1829." 421 P.2d a t 451. The a p p e l l a n t c i t e s Wilson v. Northland Greyhound Lines (D. Mont. 1 9 5 8 ) , 166 F.Supp. 667, a s a u t h o r i t y f o r h i s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e respondent f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h a s u f f i - c i e n t c a u s a l connection. The Wilson c a s e s t a t e s : "The g e n e r a l r u l e regarding t h e proof re- q u i r e d t o e s t a b l i s h c a u s a l c o n n e c t i o n between an a c c i d e n t and t h e i n j u r y claimed is s t a t e d by Corpus J u r i s Secundum a s f o l l o w s : ' P l a i n - t i f f must prove by l e g a l l y s u f f i c i e n t e v i - dence t h a t a l l t h e i n j u r i e s f o r which he c l a i m s damages a r e p r o p e r l y a t t r i b u t a b l e , i n a medical s e n s e , t o t h e a c c i d e n t . While p l a i n t i f f need n o t e s t a b l i s h such c a u s a l con- n e c t i o n with c e r t a i n t y , he must do so w i t h r e a s o n a b l e c e r t a i n t y o r by a preponderance of t h e evidence, A mere g u e s s o r c o n j e c t u r e on t h e s u b j e c t , e x p e r t o r o t h e r w i s e , is n o t s u f f i c i e n t , nor should d i f f i c u l t y i n e s t a b - l i s h i n g t h e proximate c a u s e of an i n j u r y prompt t h e c o u r t t o d i s p e n s e w i t h p r o o f t h e r e o f ; b u t t h e j u r y may i n f e r t h e c a u s e of a n i n j u r y from t h e f a c t s proved, There can be no recovery f o r an i n j u r y o r c o n d i t i o n which t h e evidence shows might have r e s u l t e d from two o r more c a u s e s , f o r o n l y one of which defendant is r e s p o n s i b l e . So, t o o , it is n o t s u f f i c i e n t f o r one seeking damages f o r a c o n d i t i o n claimed t o have r e s u l t e d from an a c c i d e n t o r i n j u r y t o show t h a t such a c c i d e n t o r i n j u r y might o r could have caused t h e c o n d i t i o n ; o t h e r c a u s e s should be excluded. ' 25 C . J . S . Barnages s e c t i o n 162, pp. 822-824." 106 F.Supp. a t 675-676. (Emphasis added.) Both Thomas and Wilson s t a t e t h a t an i n f e r e n c e can be drawn by t h e t r i e r of f a c t a s t o t h e c a u s e of an i n j u r y . I n t h i s c a s e , t h e j u r y chose t o i n f e r from t h e evidence pre- sented t h a t t h e automobile a c c i d e n t was t h e d i r e c t c a u s e of r e s p o n d e n t ' s i n j u r i e s and we w i l l n o t s u p p l a n t t h e i r f i n d - i n g s with one of our own. Lauman v. Lee ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Ivlont . , 626 P.2d 830, 833, 38 St.Rep. 499. Respondent may n o t have e s t a b l i s h e d a c a u s a l connection with c e r t a i n t y , b u t t h e t r i e r of f a c t determined he had done so "with r e a s o n a b l e c e r t a i n t y o r by a preponderance of t h e evidence." Wilson, s u p r a . The j u r y was p r o p e r l y i n s t r u c t e d by t h e D i s t r i c t Court on p u n i t i v e damages. A p p e l l a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n was improper because it allowed t h e j u r y t o award p u n i t i v e damages based upon ". . . r e c k l e s s n e s s , wantonness, o r m a l i c e of a n o t h e r . . ." is c o n t r a r y t o t h e overwhelming weight of a u t h o r i t y . F u r t h e r , t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s argument t h a t t h e Montana s t a t u t e on p u n i t i v e damages, s e c t i o n 27-1-221, MCA, is modeled a f t e r a s i m i l a r C a l i f o r n i a s t a t u t e and t h a t , t h e r e f o r e , t h e c a s e of Gombos v. Ashe ( 1 9 5 8 ) , 158 Cal.App.2d 517, 322 P.2d 933, p r e v e n t s a j u r y from awarding p u n i t i v e damages f o r t h e a c t complained of is o n l y p a r t i a l l y c o r r e c t . While i t is c o r r e c t t h a t t h e C a l i f o r n i a s t a t u t e and t h e Montana s t a t u t e a r e v i r t u a l l y i d e n t i c a l , t h e c a s e o f Gombos v. Ashe, s u p r a , was o v e r r u l e d i n Taylor v. S u p e r i o r C t . of Los Angeles Cty. ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 157 Cal.Rptr. 693, 598 P.2d 854. The C a l i f o r n i a Supreme Court h e l d i n Taylor t h a t anyone who v o l u n t a r i l y commenced and t h e r e a f t e r c o n t i n u e s t o consume alcol-iolic beverages t o t h e p o i n t of i n t o x i c a t i o n knowing t h a t t h e y t h e r e a f t e r w i l l be o p e r a t i n g a motor v e h i c l e , d e m o n s t r a t e s s u c h a c o n s c i o u s and d e l i b e r a t e d i s r e g a r d of t h e i n t e r e s t s of o t h e r s , t h a t t h e i r conduct may be c a l l e d w i l l f u l o r wanton; a c c o r d i n g l y , p u n i t i v e damages a r e r e c o v e r a b l e i n a p e r s o n a l i n j u r y a c t i o n brought a g a i n s t an i n t o x i c a t e d d r i v e r . T h i s reasoning comports we11 with t h i s C o u r t ' s p r i n c i p l e s concerning p u n i t i v e damages. W e s t a t e d i n Graham v. C l a r k s Fork N a t i o n a l Bank ( 1 9 8 1 ) , - Mont . - , 631 P.2d 718, 721, 38 St.Rep. 1140, 1143-1144: "To warrant t h e recovery of such damages [ p u n i t i v e damages] t h e a c t complained of must n o t o n l y be unlawful, but must a l s o p a r t a k e somewhat of a c r i m i n a l o r wanton n a t u r e . And i t is an almost u n i v e r s a l l y recognized r u l e t h a t such damages may be recovered i n c a s e s , and o n l y i n such c a s e s , where t h e wrongful a c t complained of is c h a r a c t e r i z e d by some such c i r c u m s t a n c e s of a g g r a v a t i o n a s w i l l f u l - n e s s , wantonness, m a l i c e , o p p r e s s i o n , b r u t a l - i t y , i n s u l t , r e c k l e s s n e s s , g r o s s n e g l i g e n c e , o r g r o s s fraud on t h e p a r t of t h e defendant. ( 8 R.C.L.585, 586.)" See a l s o : Lauman v. Lee (1981) , Mont. , 626 P.2d - - 830, 833, 38 St.Rep. 499; Butcher v. Petranek ( 1 9 7 9 ) , - ,No n t . - , 593 P.2d 743, 36 St.Rep. 830; B u t l e r s v. Mince (Colo.App. 1 9 8 0 ) , 605 P.2d 922; S v e j c a r a v. Whitman ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 82 N.M. 739, 487 P.2d 167; 65 A.L.R.3d 656. A p p e l l a n t ' s argument t h a t t h e v e r d i c t i n t h i s c a s e was e x c e s s i v e is erroneous. T h i s Court h a s addressed t h e q u e s t i o n of what c o n s t i t u t e s an e x c e s s i v e v e r d i c t i n numerous c a s e s . I n S a l v a i l v. G r e a t Northern Railway Company ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 156 Mont. 12, 473 P.2d 549, we h e l d : "The amount t o be awarded a s damages is p r o p e r l y l e f t t o t h e j u r y and t h i s Court w i l l n o t s u b s t i t u t e its judgment f o r t h a t of t h e j u r y p a r t i c u l a r l y where, a s h e r e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a s approved t h e v e r d i c t by denying a new t r i a l . . . It is o n l y where t h e amount awarded is so g r o s s l y o u t of p r o p o r t i o n t o t h e i n j u r y a s t o shock t h e c o n s c i e n c e t h a t t h i s Court w i l l i n t e r v e n e . " 473 P.2d a t 560, Again, i n Lauman v. Lee, s u p r a , we h e l d : "Our f u n c t i o n i n reviewing t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of proof of a c t u a l damages is t o determine whe- t h e r t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence i n t h e record t o s u p p o r t t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t . W e must view t h e evidence i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o Lauman, t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y below, and where t h e record p r e s e n t s con- f l i c t i n g evidence, r e s o l v e d by t h e j u r y , t h i s C o u r t is p r e c l u d e d from d i s t u r b i n g t h e v e r d i c t . T h i s r u l e is p a r t i c u l a r l y a p p l i - c a b l e when t h e D i s t r i c t Court h a s passed upon t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e evidence on motion f o r new t r i a l and h a s upheld its s u f f i c i e n c y . Strong v. Williams (1969) , 154 Mont. 65, 68-69, 460 P.2d 90, 92." 626 P.2d a t 833. See a l s o : Yates v. Hedges ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 178 Mont. 488, 585 P.2d 1290; Smith v. Kenosha Auto T r a n s p o r t (D.C. Mont. 1 9 6 4 ) , 226 Applying t h e above a u t h o r i t y t o t h e f a c t s p r e s e n t e d h e r e , i t is c l e a r t h a t t h e r e was s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence t o s u p p o r t t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t , and t h e v e r d i c t d i d n o t "shock t h e conscience" of t h i s Court. Respondent r e q u e s t e d $52,116.34 i n compensatory damages, $25,000 i n p u n i t i v e damages, and l e f t t o t h e j u r y t h e amount t h a t should be awarded f o r impairment of e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y . The f a c t t h a t t h e j u r y awarded a t o t a l of $143,000 (approxi- mately $75,000 f o r impairment of e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y , $15,000 i n p u n i t i v e damages, and $52,116.34 i n compensatory damages) is n o t s u f f i c i e n t grounds t o change t h e v e r d i c t . Indeed, t h e amounts requested and t h e amounts received a r e n o t i n d i s c o r d , nor a r e t h e y e x c e s s i v e . R e s p o n d e n t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h i s a p p e a l s h o u l d be d i s m i s s e d because t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s i n s u r e r f a i l e d t o p o s t a s u p e r s e d e a s bond f o r t h e f u l l amount of t h e judgment. T h i s c o n t e n t i o n is without m e r i t . The r e s p o n d e n t ' s remedy f o r a p p e l l a n t ' s f a i l u r e t o p o s t a s u p e r s e d e a s bond is t o e x e c u t e on t h e judgment. The f a c t t h a t a s u p e r s e d e a s bond was n o t posted does n o t a f f e c t t h e r i g h t t o an appeal. However, t h e appeal may be moot i f t h e respondent is a b l e t o e x e c u t e on t h e judgment. G a l l a t i n T r u s t & Savings Bank v. Henke ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 154 Mont. 170, 461 P.2d 448, 451. The j udgment is a f f i rmed . W e concur : Chief J u s t i c e