Opinion ID: 1764507
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: 3(a DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR WHEN IT INSTRUCTED THE JURY ON FRAUD?

Text: Stella claims as error the trial court's inclusion of a definition of fraud and an instruction that punitive damages can be awarded in the jury's discretion if they were to find that Stella was guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud. Her argument is that the word fraud causes a reaction against her of prejudice and places her at a disadvantage. She further points out that she never defended a fraud action and that the word fraud never arose in the course of the trial and, as a result, she was surprised by the instruction and had not prepared any requested instruction to counter the fraud instruction. Stella also stresses that fraud is required to be pleaded with particularity. See Rule 9(b), N.D.R.Civ.P., and that it was not even pleaded in this case. The inclusion of the definition of fraud and the use of the word in the instructions, nevertheless, was harmless error. The appellees were seeking punitive damages, which may be awarded in cases of oppression, fraud, or malice, as provided in § 32-03-07, N.D.C.C. The allegation in the complaint concerning punitive damages mentions intentional, oppressive, and malicious conduct, but does not specifically allege fraud. However, the jury awarded no punitive damages and any error committed by including the word fraud in the instructions was harmless error.