Opinion ID: 1143673
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Support for Jury's Interrogatory Responses.

Text: The Murrays assert that the jury's interrogatory responses were not supported by the evidence. Most of these arguments are meritless. Counsel for the Feights conceded at oral argument, however, that the $50,000 figure the jury awarded for financial losses other than income from the store included the $31,000 it awarded for property the Murrays took from the store. To avoid a double recovery, therefore, the total verdict must be reduced by $31,000. Although not addressed by the parties we observe another instance of double recovery which plainly appears on the special verdict form. Under the heading Interference with Chattels, the following interrogatories and answers appear: 5. If you find that mental and emotional distress was the direct and natural result of the Murrays' interference with this property, what amount of money would fairly compensate Everett Feight for this injury? $150,000 6. If you find that mental and emotional distress was the direct and natural result of the Murrays' interference with this property, what amount of money would fairly compensate Martha Feight for this injury? $150,000 Under the heading Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, the following interrogatories and answers appear: 9. If you find it more likely than not that Everett Feight suffered mental or emotional injury or distress as a result of the Murrays' actions, what amount of money would fairly compensate him for this injury? $200,000 10. If you find it more likely than not that Martha Feight suffered mental or emotional injury or distress as a result of the Murrays' actions, what amount of money would fairly compensate her for this injury? $200,000 (Emphasis added). Nowhere is the phrase as a result of the Murrays' actions in interrogatories 9 and 10 limited so as to exclude interference with chattels for which damages were awarded in response to interrogatories 5 and 6. Neither interrogatories 9 and 10 nor any jury instruction that was given indicate that if the jury were to award a separate amount of damages for emotional distress resulting from interference with chattels, it had to exclude that amount from any award of damages for emotional distress generally. Indeed, the jurors were instructed that they may consider all of the surrounding circumstances in evaluating whether the Murrays were liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress. It thus appears that the emotional distress awards amount to a double recovery. The general award for emotional distress, totalling $400,000, will stand but the award for emotional distress resulting from interference with chattels, totalling $300,000, must be overturned as subsumed in the $400,000 general award.