Opinion ID: 1922789
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Consumer Fraud Damages

Text: ¶ 17. Landlord asserts that the jury's award of exemplary damages under the Consumer Fraud Act was clearly erroneous because it was unsupported by the evidence. By special verdict, the jury awarded plaintiffs $1200 in compensatory damages as a result of landlord's violation of the Consumer Fraud Act, and awarded three times that amount, $3600, in exemplary damages. See 9 V.S.A. § 2461(b) (consumer ... may sue and recover from the ... violator ... exemplary damages not exceeding three times the value of the consideration given by the consumer). We have previously noted that the statute requires an award of exemplary damages only where malice, ill will, or wanton conduct is demonstrated. Bruntaeger v. Zeller, 147 Vt. 247, 252, 515 A.2d 123, 127 (1986). Landlord argues that the evidence produced at trial was insufficient, as a matter of law, to fulfill the requisite showing for exemplary damages. See, e.g., Meadowbrook Condo. Ass'n v. S. Burlington Realty Corp., 152 Vt. 16, 28, 565 A.2d 238, 245 (1989) (fact that the defendant did not fulfill promise to obtain cable television service because it did not want to spend the money did not demonstrate the requisite degree of malice). ¶ 18. Malice is shown through conduct manifesting personal ill will, evidencing insult or oppression, or showing a reckless or wanton disregard of plaintiff's rights, Crump v. P & C Food Mkts., Inc., 154 Vt. 284, 297, 576 A.2d 441, 449 (1990), and it may be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and the nature of the defendant's conduct. Ainsworth v. Franklin County Cheese Corp., 156 Vt. 325, 332, 592 A.2d 871, 875 (1991). Here, plaintiffs' evidence included testimony regarding a 1990 Department of Labor and Industry inspection report which ordered landlord to make repairs due to significant electrical and fire code violations at the property; a 1994 Department of Labor and Industry report informing landlord that the house was not to be occupied until further inspection; landlord's notice in the paper advertising the rental property in the summer of 1995, despite the fact that there was no evidence of any work done on the property or of further inspection; a 1996 inspection done by the Department, only two months after plaintiffs moved into the property, which revealed severe, longstanding structural and electrical deficiencies requiring the property to be vacated by plaintiffs and closed. ¶ 19. From the evidence submitted at trial, the jury could have reasonably concluded that landlord's conduct demonstrated a reckless or wanton disregard for plaintiffs' safety and rights as tenants. Thus, there was no error in submitting the issue of damages to the jury, and landlord's motions were properly denied.