Opinion ID: 1831005
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 21

Heading: whether the trial court erred in refusing to submit punitive damages to the jury.

Text: ¶ 32. MISS.CODE ANN. § 11-1-65 (1991) provides, in part that: Punitive damages may not be awarded if the claimant does not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant against whom punitive damages are sought acted with actual malice, gross negligence which evidences a willful, wanton or reckless disregard for the safety of others, or committed actual fraud. ¶ 33. This Court stated in Walter, supra, that: The modern trend of authority in the case of alienation of affection is that before the trial judge warranted and submitted to the jury the question of punitive damages on account of alienation of affections, as distinguished from criminal conversation, the testimony must show that the acts of the defendant in alienating the affection of the spouse were done with malice or that there were circumstances or aggravation.... Walter, 228 So.2d at 598. ¶ 34. This is not a case warranting punitive damages. Because the trial court made the correct ruling with regard to the evidence of adultery between Bland and Judy, punitive damages would not have been proper. There was simply no proof that Bland acted with actual malice. Therefore, this issue is without merit.