Case Name: STURM, RUGER & CO., INC., a Connecticut Corporation, Appellant, v. Michael James DAY, Appellee; Michael James DAY, Cross-Appellant, v. STURM, RUGER & CO., INC., a Connecticut Corporation, Cross-Appellee
Court: Alaska Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Alaska
Decision Date: 1980-08-22
Citations: 615 P.2d 621
Docket Number: Nos. 3092, 3135
Parties: STURM, RUGER & CO., INC., a Connecticut Corporation, Appellant, v. Michael James DAY, Appellee. Michael James DAY, Cross-Appellant, v. STURM, RUGER & CO., INC., a Connecticut Corporation, Cross-Appellee.
Judges: Before RABINOWITZ, C. J., CONNOR, BOOCHEVER and BURKE, JJ., and DIMOND, Senior Justice.
Reporter: Pacific Reporter 2d
Volume: 615
Pages: 621–626

Head Matter:
STURM, RUGER & CO., INC., a Connecticut Corporation, Appellant, v. Michael James DAY, Appellee. Michael James DAY, Cross-Appellant, v. STURM, RUGER & CO., INC., a Connecticut Corporation, Cross-Appellee.
Nos. 3092, 3135.
Supreme Court of Alaska.
Aug. 22, 1980.
Robert L. Richmond, Richmond, Wil-loughby & Willard, Anchorage, and Kenneth P. Jacobus, Hughes, Thorsness, Gantz, Powell & Brundin, Anchorage, and Edward L. Lascher, Ventura, Cal. (in association), for appellant/cross-appellee.
H. Bixler Whiting, Fairbanks, for appel-lee/cross-appellant.
Before RABINOWITZ, C. J., CONNOR, BOOCHEVER and BURKE, JJ., and DIMOND, Senior Justice.
This case was submitted to the court for decision prior to Justice Boochever’s resignation.

Opinion:
OPINION ON REHEARING
CONNOR, Justice.
In our original opinion in this case, Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. v. Day, 594 P.2d 38, 49 (Alaska 1979), we reversed and remanded for a new trial as to both compensatory damages and punitive damages. We also held that "if punitive damages are awarded at a second trial, on essentially the same evidence as that presented in the first trial, they should not exceed $250,000." 594 P.2d at 49.
We have received several briefs on rehearing. After considering these further arguments of the parties, we have decided to modify our previous opinion and holdings in certain respects.
I.
Day requests that we remand for the limited purpose of ascertaining his comparative negligence, rather than reversing the award of compensatory damages and remanding for an entire new trial. He contends that the amount of compensatory damages is not challenged, and that to retry that aspect of the case would unnecessarily entail extensive time and expense, e. g., in recalling expert medical witnesses. Sturm, Ruger is not strongly opposed to letting the original jury award of compensatory damages stand on remand, although "if pressed" it "would probably opt for . a full re-trial." In fact, Sturm, Ruger acknowledges that "there is much to be said for informing the jury on retrial that the quantum of compensatory damages has been resolved," submitting to the panel only the question of the percentage of fault to be attributed to the plaintiff and to the defendant.
In State v. Kaatz, (also known as Kaatz II), 572 P.2d 775 (Alaska 1977), we approved the use of partial new trials on the issue of percentage apportionment of comparative fault in the cases where the evidence on liability is separable from the evidence on damages. In such cases, we stated,
"the court should instruct the jurors that (1) they must assign some percentage of the negligence to each party, (2) the total damages are in the sum found by the previous trier of fact (unless the same jury is also retrying the damage issue), and (3) their sole function is to apportion the negligence between the parties."
572 P.2d at 785, n.11.
In Kaatz II, we held that the trial court erred in failing to retry the damages question after we remanded for a new trial on fault and damages. Failure to retry damages in that case was potentially prejudicial to the defendant because it had not offered evidence at trial on the issue of damages, apparently in the belief that under the contributory negligence doctrine plaintiff's claim should have been barred entirely. However, we also held that it was appropriate for the trial judge to apportion negligence on remand, while submitting the question of damages to the jury, since the evidence on liability was almost entirely separate from the evidence on damages. In such cases, we noted: "[I]f the trier of fact performs its function correctly, it will consider the two issues wholly separately." Id. at 785.
Sturm, Ruger has cited no cases which prohibit the use of a. partial new trial on the issue of comparative fault while leaving the original award of damages intact. It does, however, point to cases from other jurisdictions which hold that the general issue of liability cannot be separated from the issue of the percentage of negligence attributable to each party on retrial. Begin v. Weber, 305 Minn. 441, 234 N.W.2d 192 (1975) ; Juvland v. Mattson, 289 Minn. 365, 184 N.W.2d 423 (1971). The question of damages, on the other hand, can be, and is, answered independently of liability. See Ferguson v. Northern States Power Co., 307 Minn. 26, 239 N.W.2d 190, 196 (1976).
It has been held that a partial new trial will not be permitted "where a tangled or complex fact situation would make it unfair to one party to determine damages apart from liability, or where, 'there is reason to think that the verdict may represent a compromise among jurors with different views on whether the defendant was liable.' " [citations omitted] Vizzini v. Ford Motor Co., 569 F.2d 754, 760 (3d Cir. 1977). In Alaska, whether the issues are sufficiently separable to warrant a partial new trial depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. See Poulin v. Zartman, 542 P.2d 251, 276 (Alaska 1975).
In the present case the damage issue was fully litigated at the first trial, neither party contests the jury's award of compensatory damages, there is no evidence that the damage award reflects a compromise verdict, and appellant has made no showing that it would be prejudiced by failure to retry the damages issue. Although there is always the chance that new evidence of fault would affect the jury's determination of damages, we believe that in this case the evidence on liability is almost entirely separate from the evidence on damages, and the potential for prejudice is slight. In order to limit the time and expenditure required by a new trial, we direct that there shall be a partial new trial on the issue of comparative fault, letting the amount of compensatory damages remain intact.
The partial new trial shall be limited to determining the comparative fault of the parties.
II.
Day argues that the punitive damage question should not be remanded for a new trial, since the trial judge never ruled on the question of remittitur. In our original opinion, we held that the trial court erred in ruling that the remittitur motion was untimely under Rule 59(f). Thus, Day maintains that, having now ruled that the question of excessive damages was properly before the trial court, we should remand for the trial court to consider remittitur, rather than determining the question ourselves.
On reflection, we have decided upon a different course. We believe that a mistake was made when we held in our original opinion that the punitive damage award of $2,895,000 "appears to be so out of proportion to the amount of actual damages as to suggest that the jury's award was the result of passion or prejudice". 594 P.2d at 48.
After reviewing the record once more, we are now of the opinion that the punitive damage verdict was not the result of passion or prejudice. It was simply an excessive verdict when viewed according to the various factors set forth in our original opinion. Id. 594 P.2d at 48, n.17. Therefore, there is no reason to remand for either a new trial or a trial court ruling on remit-titur. If we were to remand, and if the trial court granted a remittitur, it is highly probable that the question of excessive damages would again be presented to us in an additional appeal. Judicial economy dictates that we make the decision ourselves at this time.
After further consideration of the evidence in the record and the factors, mentioned above, which bear upon the reduction of an excessive punitive damage award, we are of the view that in our original opinion we reduced the award unduly. In our opinion the award should be reduced to the amount of $500,000 rather than the $250,000 set by our original opinion. Moreover, judgment for $500,000 in punitive damages may be entered immediately upon remand.
This case is to be remanded to the superi- or court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REMANDED.
MATTHEWS, J., not participating.
. In Begin, the court noted that there was no reason to retry the damages issue, since the jury award seemed reasonable. 234 N.W.2d at 195.
. See Jenkins v. Commodore Corporation Southern, 584 S.W.2d 773, 778 (Tenn.1979). There the court held that a verdict for compensatory damages was excessive and subject to reduction through remittitur, even though it was not the result of passion or prejudice. Its mere excessiveness, the court held, did not warrant the conclusion that it was the result of emotion, prejudice, or improper motive on the part of the jurors. The verdict was for $250,-000, and it was reduced through remittitur to $100,000.
Although that case concerned compensatory rather than punitive damages, the underlying principle is the same.
. We still believe that a comparison of actual damages with the punitive damages is a factor which may enter into the determination of ex-cessiveness. However, there may be cases in which it is of only slight value or is totally inapplicable.
. If the verdict were tainted because of passion or prejudice, we might well be required to grant a new trial, and not permit remittitur by the trial court. See International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 959 v. King, 572 P.2d 1168, 1179 (Alaska 1977); Hash v. Hogan, 453 P.2d 468, 473 (Alaska 1969).
. Alternatively, Day is entitled to a new trial in the event that he does not accept the remittitur. See Kennon v. Gilmer, 131 U.S. 22, 29-30, 9 S.Ct. 696, 698-699, 33 L.Ed. 110 (1889); Anno., 53 A.L.R. 779, supplemented at 95 A.L.R. 1163; 6 A J. Moore, Federal Practice, sec. 59.05[3] at 59-61 (2d ed. 1948 and Supp. 1979).