Opinion ID: 2045157
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ambiguity of Punitive Damage Award

Text: Defendants argue that the punitive damage award is fatally ambiguous and thus void because the jury did not identify against whom the punitive damages were awarded. We find this argument to be without merit. The district court also held that this issue goes to the form of the punitive damage jury instruction, was not timely raised by an objection, and was therefore waived. Defendants object to the court's characterization of the issue and assert the error was preserved because it concerns interpretation of the jury's verdict. Because we find the solution to this issue substantively rather than in procedural forays, we assume defendants are correct and that error is preserved. The trial court, in Instruction No. 24, set out the law pertaining to IBP's liability for punitive damages: IBP, Inc. is liable for the punitive damages by reason of the acts of Diane Arndt if one of the following occurred: 1. IBP, Inc. authorized the act and the way it was done; or 2. Diane Arndt was unfit and IBP, Inc. was reckless in employing or retaining her; or 3. Diane Arndt was employed in a managerial capacity and was acting in the scope of employment; or 4. IBP, Inc. ratified or approved the act. After receiving this and other instructions, the jury returned a verdict in Wilson's favor, along with answers to special interrogatories, that indicated punitive damages were warranted and that IBP was to be held liable for them. The verdict read as follows: We, the Jury, find in favor of the Plaintiff, Kevin Wilson and fix the amount of his recovery against the Defendants at $4,000.00 for compensatory damages. .... Special Interrogatories Punitive Damages Question No. 1: Do you find by a preponderance of clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence the conduct of the defendant, Diane Arndt constituted a willful and wanton disregard for the rights or safety of another? Answer Yes or No ANSWER Yes .... Question No. 2: What amount of punitive damages, if any, do you award? ANSWER $15,000,000.00 .... Question No. 3: Was the conduct of the defendant, Diane Arndt directed specifically at Kevin Wilson? Answer Yes or No ANSWER No Question No. 4: Is IBP, Inc., as the employer of Diane Arndt, liable for punitive damages as explained to you in instruction number ______? Answer Yes or No ANSWER Yes We have said [i]t is fundamental that a jury's verdicts are to be liberally construed to give effect to the intention of the jury and to harmonize the verdicts if it is possible to do so. Hoffman, 442 N.W.2d at 126. Only where the verdicts are so logically and legally inconsistent that they cannot be reconciled will they be set aside. Id. at 127. Reading the instructions as a whole (as the court instructed the jury to do), and in connection with the jury's answers on the special interrogatory verdict forms, leads to the conclusion that IBP was to be solely liable for any punitive damages awarded based on the conduct of defendant Arndt. As support for this determination, no specific punitive damage award was directed against Arndt. The trial court did not err in finding there was no ambiguity and that the punitive damage award was against IBP alone.