Opinion ID: 1922039
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admission of Evidence of Previous Violations of the City's Code

Text: [¶ 21] Soley next argues that the court erred by admitting evidence of Soley's prior building code violations in the City of Portland on the issue of punitive damages. Soley contends that the evidence was irrelevant to the determination of punitive damages stemming from either the claim for conversion or the claim for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. [¶ 22] Any analysis of relevance regarding the determination of punitive damages in this case necessarily begins with a review of the facts conclusively established upon the adjudication by default of liability on the conversion and emotional distress claims. [15] In the count alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress, the tenants reallege the general facts recited in their complaint, including, inter alia, Soley's repeated broken promises to fix the numerous problems with the tenants' apartment, his refusal to fix the apartment following an inspection by the Portland Code Enforcement Officer in September, and the continuing condemnation of the premises as unfit for human occupation. [¶ 23] Thus, the tortious conduct proved by the tenants was not limited to the break-in, as Soley argues, but encompassed the ongoing conduct of the defendants, including repeated refusals to fix problems amounting to code violations. It is well established that prior misconduct by a defendant that is similar to the misconduct giving rise to liability is relevant to the determination of punitive damages. See BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 576-77, 116 S.Ct. 1589, 134 L.Ed.2d 809 (1996) (citing TXO Prod. Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp., 509 U.S. 443, 462 n. 28, 113 S.Ct. 2711 n. 28, 125 L.Ed.2d 366 n. 28 (1993); Gryger v. Burke, 334 U.S. 728, 732, 68 S.Ct. 1256, 92 L.Ed. 1683 (1948)). This approach reflects one of the primary purposes of punitive damages in allowing that a recidivist may be punished more severely than a first offender [because] repeated misconduct is more reprehensible than an individual instance of malfeasance. BMW, 517 U.S. at 577, 116 S.Ct. 1589. [16] [¶ 24] The court did not err in admitting, on a carefully limited basis, evidence of prior conduct relating to repeated failures to fix serious habitability problems.