Opinion ID: 1760152
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Damages for Mental Distress

Text: Southern Pine contends that it is entitled to a substantial remittitur of the $20,000 compensatory-damages award. Burch proved only $100 in economic loss; therefore, Southern Pine insists, the balance of the award, that is, $19,900, represented damages for mental distress. It argues that Burch failed to testify in significant detail about the nature, severity, or duration of his alleged [mental distress]. Brief of Southern Pine, at 16. We address these contentions in the context of a claim alleging the wrongful termination of utilities and the standard of review of a damages award for mental distress.
A public utility[ [2] ] is obligated to serve all members of the public that it holds itself out to serve, fairly and without discrimination. Miller v. Hillview Water Works Project, Inc., 273 Ala. 267, 271, 139 So.2d 337, 339 (1962). This duty ... exists independent of [a] statute regulating the manner in which such utilities do business.... The duty is imposed because [public utilities] are organized to do a business affected with a public interest and are held out to the public as being willing to serve all of its members. 273 Ala. at 271, 139 So.2d at 340. A breach of such public duty is a tort, wherein the measure of damages is governed by the rules of tort actions. Alabama Water Serv. Co. v. Wakefield, 231 Ala. 112, 115, 163 So. 626, 628 (1935). Thus, in actions alleging the wrongful termination of utility services, damages for mental distress are recoverable, 231 Ala. at 116, 163 So. at 628, and, when the circumstances justify it, [so are] punitive damages. Sims v. Alabama Water Co., 205 Ala. 378, 380, 87 So. 688, 690 (1920); Birmingham Waterworks Co. v. Keiley, 2 Ala.App. 629, 56 So. 838 (1911).
There is no fixed standard for determining the amount of compensatory damages a jury may award for mental anguish. The amount of the damages award is left to the jury's sound discretion, subject only to review by the court for a clear abuse of that discretion. Delchamps, Inc. v. Bryant, 738 So.2d 824, 837 (Ala.1999). However, where the plaintiff suffers no physical injury and offer[s] little or no direct evidence concerning the mental suffering sustained as a result of the defendant's wrongdoing, we give stricter scrutiny to an award for mental distress. National Ins. Ass'n v. Sockwell, 829 So.2d 111, 133 (Ala.2002). See Kmart Corp. v. Kyles, 723 So.2d 572 (Ala.1998). The plaintiff's testimony is direct evidence of mental anguish. 723 So.2d at 578. Thus, where the plaintiff has suffered no physical injury, we address the strength of the presumption that a jury's verdict is correct, Bryant, 738 So.2d at 837, in the context of the plaintiff's testimony regarding the nature, severity, and duration of the mental anguish. Alabama Power Co. v. Murray, 751 So.2d 494, 501 (Ala.1999). Cf. Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Jeter, 832 So.2d 25 (Ala.2001) (remitting $400,000 compensatory-damages award to $300,000); Oliver v. Towns, 770 So.2d 1059 (Ala.2000) ($500,000 compensatory-damages award remitted to $75,000); Alabama Power Co. v. Murray, supra ($150,000 compensatory-damages award reduced to $84,000); Bryant, supra (reducing $400,000 compensatory-damages award to $100,000); Kyles, supra ($100,000 compensatory-damages award remitted to $15,000). Nevertheless, in Oliver v. Towns, supra , we held that an award of $75,000 was warranted, where the plaintiff, who had been defrauded by her attorney, testified only that she suffered `a lot of [mental anguish]' and that she had to seek counseling because of her worry over losing the opportunity to buy a house. Jeter, 832 So.2d at 37 (discussing Oliver ). In Murray, supra, where the plaintiff's home and possessions were destroyed by fire, we held that an award of $84,000 was proper, although the plaintiff testified only that he was `all shook up,' and that `[i]t just was hard.' 751 So.2d at 500. Kyles, supra, was a malicious-prosecution case in which the plaintiff was detained by law-enforcement officers for approximately three hours on a shoplifting charge. In that case, we held that an award of $15,000 was warranted, although the only evidence presented of the plaintiff's alleged mental suffering was her husband's testimony that she had cried on one occasion. Jeter, 832 So.2d at 37 (discussing Kyles ). Burch was without electricity for 34 days. For two weeks of that time, he slept at the home of relatives. [3] He testified that he was inconvenienced, that he lost the use of his home, and that he was embarrassed at having to move back in with [his] relatives when [his] power was off. The direct evidence of mental distress in this case is more significant than it was in Kyles, which supported damages of $15,000. Burch testified that he was inconvenienced and embarrassed; the plaintiff in Kyles did not testify regarding her mental state. Also, the deprivation in this case lasted for weeks, while in Kyles the plaintiff was detained approximately three hours. We conclude, therefore, that an award of $19,900 for mental distress is not excessive. See also Alabama Power Co. v. Harmon, 483 So.2d 386 (Ala.1986) (award of $75,000 for mental distress was appropriate in an action based on a 10-month delay in providing promised electrical service).