Opinion ID: 2082309
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Vicnire v. Ford Credit

Text: Both parties on appeal challenge specific portions of the presiding justice's instructions regarding plaintiff's claim under the former Truth-in-Lending Act, P.L.1969, ch. 423, § 35, 9 M.R.S.A. §§ 3901 et seq. (repealed eff. June 12, 1975). Defendant Ford Credit contends that the presiding justice erred in stating as a matter of law that the parties had engaged in a consumer credit transaction within the coverage of the act, while plaintiff Vicnire argues that the presiding justice erred in limiting his damages to $1,000 regardless of the number of specific violations of the act found by the jury. We find merit in neither contention. First, defendant Ford Credit waived its right to challenge the presiding justice's instruction on appeal by failing to raise an objection below. Perry v. Butler, 142 Me. 154, 48 A.2d 631 (1946). But even if the point had been properly preserved, the record fully justifies the presiding justice's decision to rule as a matter of law that the parties engaged in a consumer credit transaction to which the provisions of the Truth-in-Lending Act applied. Former 9 M.R.S.A. § 3903 defined a consumer transaction as one in which the money, property, or services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family, household or agricultural purposes, while section 3904 excluded from the act [c]redit transactions involving extensions of credit for business or commercial purposes. . .. Vicnire's unrebutted testimony that the truck was the only family vehicle and his sole means of transportation to his regular job conclusively established that his use of the truck was primarily personal. Evidence presented by Ford Credit to show that Vicnire also used the truck to transport cattle that he sold as a sideline was clearly insufficient to allow a reasonable juror to find in favor of Ford Credit. Nor could a reasonable juror have placed much weight on the fact that a clause of the purchase contract stated that the purchase was for Business or Commercial Use, in light of the admission of Ford Credit's former office manager that the clause was included in all contracts for the sale of trucks regardless of the intended use of the vehicle. Similarly, there is no error in the presiding justice's conclusion that former section 3922 of the Maine Truth-in-Lending Act limited plaintiff's damages to $1,000 regardless of the number of violations of the act by a defendant in a single transaction. Section 3922 provided: [A]ny creditor who fails in connection with any consumer credit transaction to disclose to any person any information required under this chapter to be disclosed to that person is liable to that person in an amount equal to the sum of: A. Twice the amount of the finance charge in connection with the transaction, except that the liability under this paragraph shall not be less than $100 nor greater than $1,000; . . . . (Emphasis added) The emphasized portions of this section evidence a clear legislative intent to place a $1,000 ceiling on damages for all violations of the statute that arose in any single credit transaction. Plaintiff urges us to depart from the plain meaning of section 3922 on the basis of a federal case. Thomas v. Myers-Dickson Furniture Co., 479 F.2d 740 (5th Cir. 1973), which interpreted a similar provision of the federal version of the truth-in-lending act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1640(a)(1) (1969), to allow multiple recoveries, and a subsequent congressional amendment of the federal act to state expressly that multiple recoveries would not be allowed, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1640(g) (1974). We reject both arguments. The Thomas case is distinguishable from the instant case on its facts, [1] and the subsequent congressional amendment may well have reflected a clarification of Congress' original intent rather than an acknowledgment that the former section allowed multiple recoveries.
The jury found that employees of Ford Credit converted (1) certain items of personal property which were in Vicnire's truck at the time of its repossession and (2) a bag containing $650 in cash which Vicnire had left unattended inside his house. On motion of defendant, the presiding justice set aside the jury's verdict finding that Ford Credit's employees had converted $650 in cash, but upheld the jury's finding that they converted the property left in plaintiff's truck. Both parties appeal from adverse rulings of the presiding justice. In challenging the presiding justice's grant to defendant of judgment n. o. v. regarding the alleged conversion of $650, plaintiff argues that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. We disagree. The sole evidence linking an employee of Ford Credit to the crime was Vicnire's own testimony that he left $650 in a paper bag inside his house on October 8, 1974, and that when he returned he found that the money was missing and that a letter from Ford Credit had been left on a table inside his home. A Ford Credit employee admitted visiting plaintiff's house on October 8, 1974, but insisted that he had left the letter in a screen door and never entered the house. We concur with the presiding justice's conclusion that this evidence was entirely lacking in sufficiency to support the jury's verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Nor do we find merit in defendant's contention that the presiding justice should have granted it judgment n. o. v. in regard to plaintiff's second conversion claim for $350 of personal property on grounds that the evidence failed to establish (1) that plaintiff had complied with a contractual provision requiring plaintiff to make written demand for the items in question within a specific time period and (2) that the employees of Ford Credit who allegedly converted the property were acting within the scope of their employment or that Ford Credit had ratified their actions. By failing to raise the issue below, defendant waived its right to argue on appeal that the contractual provision requiring written notice bars plaintiff's recovery. Reville v. Reville, Me., 289 A.2d 695, 697 (1972). In regard to defendant's second argument, we note that Vicnire testified that the items in question were in his truck at the time of the repossession and that the employees of Ford Credit testified that they had taken an inventory of personal property found in the truck. Although the employees denied having converted Vicnire's property, the evidence was sufficient to permit the jury to infer that the employees had removed and retained the property and that Ford Credit had ratified their actions by failing to provide for the return of his property.
The jury awarded plaintiff $5,000 in compensatory damages and $10,000 in punitive damages for mental suffering allegedly resulting from the intentional acts of defendant. The presiding justice set aside the jury's award of compensatory damages, finding that plaintiff had failed to establish all the elements of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress, but upheld the award of punitive damages. On appeal, plaintiff urges the court to reinstate the verdict for compensatory damages, while defendant argues that the punitive damages award should be set aside. The recognition of the protection that the law affords the interest in freedom from emotional distress is of relatively recent vintage in Maine. Prior to 1970, a plaintiff could not recover damages for negligently inflicted mental suffering except in connection with recovery of damages for physical injury caused by the same negligent act. As this court stated in Herrick v. Evening Pub. Co., 120 Me. 138, 140, 113 A. 16, 17 (1921): In case of physical injury to the person caused by negligence, mental suffering resulting from such injury is a legitimate element of damage; but if no bodily injury is alleged or proved, there can be no premise upon which to base a conclusion of mental suffering. [citation omitted] Such elements of damage, when there is no physical injury, are outside the principle of compensation. [citation omitted] At common law it was well settled that mere injury to the feelings or affections did not constitute an independent basis for the recovery of damages. In Wallace v. Coca-Cola Bottling Plants, Inc., Me., 269 A.2d 117 (1970), the court specifically rejected the Herrick rule and recognized that a plaintiff may under appropriate circumstances recover for the negligent infliction of emotional distress. In Wallace, the plaintiff consumer became ill after discovering an unpackaged prophylactic in a bottle of soft drink that had been purchased from the defendant. Although the plaintiff suffered no physical injury resulting from the immediate impact of the prophylactic, the court upheld the plaintiff's recovery, stating: In the light of advances which have been made by medical science and the improvement in investigatory techniques since this Court decided Herrick in 1921, we decline to follow it any longer. Instead, we adopt the rule that in those cases where it is established by a fair preponderance of the evidence there is a proximate causal relationship between an act of negligence and reasonably foreseeable mental and emotional suffering by a reasonably foreseeable plaintiff, such proven damages are compensable even though there is no discernable trauma from external causes. Id. at 121. However, the court cautioned: The mental and emotional suffering, to be compensable, must be substantial and manifested by objective symptomatology. Id. at 121. [2] The plaintiff in Wallace satisfied this requirement since the evidence established that plaintiff's illness flowing from his mental distress persisted for some time and caused the Plaintiff to be absent from his work. Id. at 118. Although the court in Wallace had no occasion to address the question of a defendant's liability for intentional, as opposed to negligent, infliction of emotional distress, it is axiomatic that an interest which merits protection from an unintentional interference must be shielded from intentional intrusions as well. Indeed, a defendant's liability for the intentional infliction of emotional distress has been recognized in most other jurisdictions, as reflected in § 46 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965), which provides: § 46. Outrageous Conduct Causing Severe Emotional Distress (1) One who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress, and if bodily harm to the other results from it, for such bodily harm. We now adopt the rule of liability stated in the Restatement of Torts. We expressly recognize that a defendant may be liable for engaging in extreme and outrageous conduct and intentionally or recklessly inflicting severe mental distress on a plaintiff. Specifically, in order to recover for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must establish that (1) the defendant intentionally or recklessly inflicted severe emotional distress or was certain or substantially certain that such distress would result from his conduct, Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46, Comment i ; (2) the conduct was so extreme and outrageous as to exceed all possible bounds of decency and must be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community, Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46, Comment d ; (3) the actions of the defendant caused the plaintiff's emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress suffered by the plaintiff was severe so that no reasonable man could be expected to endure it. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46, Comment j. Although severe emotional distress is usually manifested by shock, illness or other bodily harm, such objective symptomatology is not an absolute prerequisite for recovery of damages for intentional, as opposed to negligent, infliction of emotional distress. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46, Comment k. In appropriate cases, severe emotional distress may be inferred from the extreme and outrageous nature of the defendant's conduct alone. Id. To summarize, a plaintiff may recover damages for emotional distress resulting from the tortious conduct of a defendant in three distinct situations. First, as traditionally provided, mental distress or pain and suffering accompanying physical injury caused by tortious conduct is compensable. Second, as established in Wallace, a plaintiff may recover damages for emotional distress resulting from negligent conduct (even though that conduct caused no direct physical injury) if the distress is substantial and manifested by objective symptomatology, that is, results in illness or bodily harm. And, third, as recognized in this opinion, a defendant is subject to liability if he engages in extreme or outrageous conduct that intentionally or recklessly inflicts severe emotional distress upon another. In the instant case, the presiding justice set aside the jury's verdict awarding plaintiff $5,000 in compensatory damages for mental suffering on grounds that [t]here was no evidence of severe or substantial mental suffering, no evidence of objective symptomatology. A careful review of the record compels agreement with the presiding justice's conclusion. The sole evidence of plaintiff's emotional distress was his own testimony that he felt kind of down and mad and nervous for about a month. As a matter of law that evidence could not support a verdict for plaintiff on a theory of negligent infliction of mental distress, since Vicnire suffered no illness or bodily harm ( i. e., no objective symptomatology) as a result of his alleged distress. Even were the jury to conclude that defendant by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly inflicted mental distress upon Vicnire, there is no evidence that his alleged mental distress rose to that degree of severity that is required by the law to justify imposing liability upon defendant. This jury heard no evidence from which it could conclude that plaintiff's mental distress was so severe that no reasonable man could be expected to endure it. In short, the presiding justice's order setting aside the jury's verdict of $5,000 in compensatory damages for emotional distress was entirely proper. [3] However, the presiding justice's denial of defendant's motion of judgment n. o. v. in regard to the jury's award of $10,000 in punitive damages is more troublesome. As defendant correctly observes, both the instructions and the interrogatories inextricably linked the award of punitive damages with a finding by the jury that Ford Credit was liable for the intentional infliction of mental distress. [4] Punitive damages must be based on underlying tortious conduct by the defendant. Stacy v. Portland Pub. Co., 68 Me. 279 (1878). Once the presiding justice ruled that plaintiff had failed to establish liability for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, the award of $10,000 in punitive damages could no longer stand. Accordingly, we sustain defendant's appeal on this point and set aside the jury's punitive damage award.