Opinion ID: 1924721
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Propriety of the Punitive Damages Award

Text: The jury awarded Mokrzycki $100,000 in punitive damages, and CEC challenges the propriety of that award. After a careful review of the record and the applicable law, we disagree with CEC's arguments. This Court is bound by a presumption of correctness of the amount of punitive damages rendered by the trier of fact. Shoals Ford, Inc. v. Clardy, 588 So.2d 879, 884 (Ala.1991). We may not reverse the judgment, based on a jury verdict, on the ground that the evidence was insufficient unless that evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to Mokrzycki, indicates that the verdict was plainly and palpably wrong and unjust. Carter v. Henderson, 598 So.2d 1350, 1354 (Ala. 1992). A jury's award of punitive damages will be considered excessive, as a matter of law, only if: 1) the jury's decision-making process was tainted by bias, passion, prejudice, or other improper motive; or 2) the verdict goes beyond that necessary to accomplish society's goals of punishment and deterrence. Killough v. Jahandarfard, 578 So.2d 1041, 1046 (Ala. 1991) (citation omitted). After conducting a hearing under Hammond v. City of Gadsden, 493 So.2d 1374 (Ala.1986), the trial court properly considered the factors set out in Green Oil Co. v. Hornsby, 539 So.2d 218, 223-24 (Ala.1989). The trial court determined that the jury's award was not tainted by bias, passion, prejudice, or any other improper motive and that the verdict was not excessive. The trial court is better positioned to decide whether the verdict is so flawed. Hammond, 493 So.2d at 1378. We defer to the trial court's determination in the absence of evidence that the verdict was plainly and palpably wrong and unjust. Carter v. Henderson, 598 So.2d 1350, 1354 (Ala.1992). CEC presented no such evidence. We note that the punitive damages award is less than the compensatory damages award. After examining the record, analyzing CEC's culpability, comparing verdicts in similar cases, and considering other relevant factors, we conclude that the $100,000 punitive damages award is not excessive.