Opinion ID: 1508402
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Emotional and Punitive Damages.

Text: After Schnabel completed presentation of his evidence, Nordic Toyota moved for judgment as a matter of law. [2] See V.R.C.P. 41(b)(2) (after plaintiff has completed presentation of evidence, defendant may move for dismissal on grounds that upon facts and law plaintiff has not shown right to relief). Schnabel claims the court erred in granting the motion on the issues of intentional infliction of emotional distress and punitive damages. When reviewing a court's grant of a Rule 41(b)(2) motion, we must consider whether the court's fact findings are clearly erroneous, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. New England Educ. Training Serv. v. Silver St. Partnership, 156 Vt. 604, 611, 595 A.2d 1341, 1344-45 (1991) (citing Stevens v. Cohen, 138 Vt. 7, 8-9, 409 A.2d 604, 605 (1979)). Schnabel's assertion that the court erred in granting Nordic Toyota's motion for entry of judgment on the issue of intentional infliction of emotional distress appears in both of his briefs unaccompanied by facts, law, or reasoning, and therefore need not detain us. KPC Corp. v. Book Press, Inc., 161 Vt. 145, 152, 636 A.2d 325, 329 (1993). The Court will not search the record for errors inadequately briefed. See Bishop v. Town of Barre, 140 Vt. 564, 579, 442 A.2d 50, 57 (1982) (citations omitted). As to Schnabel's claim regarding punitive damages, we begin by noting that the purpose of punitive damages is to punish morally culpable conduct and to deter similar conduct in the future. See Hilder v. St. Peter, 144 Vt. 150, 164, 478 A.2d 202, 210-11 (1984). Punitive damages may be awarded upon a showing of actual malice. See Shortle v. Central Vermont Pub. Serv. Corp., 137 Vt. 32, 33, 399 A.2d 517, 518 (1979). This may be shown by conduct manifesting personal ill will or carried out under circumstances evidencing insult or oppression, or even by conduct showing a reckless or wanton disregard of one's rights. Id. The court's factual findings contain no reference to conduct on the part of Nordic Toyota that rises to the level of actual malice or reckless disregard of the plaintiff's rights. Viewed in the light most favorable to Nordic Toyota, the evidence presented at trial does not support Schnabel's argument that the court's dismissal of his punitive damages claim was clearly erroneous.