Opinion ID: 2387298
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Persons Suffering from Mental Disease or Defect

Text: Appellant argues that punitive damages were not recoverable in this case because Edwards was suffering from psychosis and delusions at the time, and that his delusions and psychosis drove him to commit the actions against Stills. She contends that punitive damages are designed to punish tortfeasors and deter intentional, malicious conduct, and that such damages should never be awarded against persons suffering from a mental disease, because it would be unfair to punish a sick person who was not acting of his own free will. Appellant asserts that the criminal standard for the affirmative defense of insanity, whether the person lacked the capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law or to appreciate the criminality of his conduct, is not appropriate in civil cases. See Ark.Code Ann. § 5-2-312(a) (Repl.1997). Rather, she advocates a lesser standard, based upon a case-by-case analysis of the defendant's mental state, where the evidence shows that the Appellant suffered from a mental disease or defect. We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument for two reasons. First, Appellant offers no authority or convincing argument that the civil standard for insanity should be any different than the criminal standard. The cases that have addressed this issue, including those relied upon by Appellant, discuss the defendant's mental state in terms of his being legally insane or his being able to form or possess the requisite intent for punitive damages. See Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co. v. Saboda, 489 So.2d 768 (Fla.Dist.Ct. App.1986) (holding that a deranged person, one who cannot form a rational intent, cannot be guilty of a wanton tort requiring actual or constructive malice and cannot be held liable for punitive damages); Goff v. Taylor, 708 S.W.2d 113 (Ky.Ct.App.1986) (holding that mentally deficient persons are insulated from punitive damages, recognizing the duty to balance the protection of society at large with compassion for those unable to conform their conduct to the expected standard ); Jewell v. Colby, 66 N.H. 399, 24 A. 902 (N.H.1891) (holding that insanity is a defense to damages sought on account of the defendant's intent or motive because an insane person has no will or motive ); Lee v. Thomas, 534 S.W.2d 422 (Tex.Civ.App.1976) (holding that the defendant was not liable for exemplary or punitive damages because he was insane at the time, such that he did not know right from wrong, did not know the nature and consequence of his actions, and was not able to properly conduct his business affairs). In Bryant v. Carrier, 214 N.C. 191, 198 S.E. 619 (N.C.1938), the Supreme Court of North Carolina recognized that while an insane person is civilly liable for his torts and for compensatory damages, he is not necessarily liable for punitive damages. In order to justify punitive damages, the plaintiff must show that the defendant was not insane at the time of the wrongs complained of, but was mentally competent, and that he had legal capacity to commit the acts alleged with such elements of aggravation as would justify the award of punitive damages. Id. at 620 (emphasis added). Similarly, in Schumann v. Crofoot, 43 Or.App. 53, 602 P.2d 298 (Or.Ct.App.1979), the Oregon Court of Appeals recognized that insanity is not an absolute defense to a claim for punitive damages; rather, it is a defense only if, at the time of the wrongful act, the defendant was  incapable of exercising sufficient judgment to render his conduct deserving of punishment[.] Id. at 303 (emphasis added). The Oregon court held further that the issue of whether the defendant's mental state was such that punitive damages were appropriate was a question of fact to be resolved by the jury. See also Delahanty v. Hinckley, 799 F.Supp. 184 (D.D.C.1992). The foregoing cases demonstrate that the pertinent inquiry for determining whether punitive damages may be assessed is whether the defendant was insane such that he was unable to form a rational intent or motive or was otherwise unable to conform his conduct to the standards of society and the law. None of those cases provide an absolute defense to a person who claims to have suffered from some form of mental disease or defect, unless the defect is such that it renders the person incapable of forming the requisite intent for punitive damages or incapable of conforming his behavior to the requirements of the law. Second, Appellant has not provided us with any reason to apply a different standard for punitive damages merely because the person's defense is one of insanity. We believe that no matter what the defense, the focus remains on the defendant's intent in committing the acts. Our current standard for punitive damages, outlined above, encompasses the defendant's ability to act intentionally by requiring the plaintiff to prove that the defendant knew or should have known that his conduct would naturally or probably result in injury and that he continued such conduct wantonly or with conscious indifference to the consequences of his actions, such that malice may be inferred. Where the evidence shows that the defendant suffers from a mental disease or defect that renders him unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct, it naturally follows that he cannot be said to have acted wantonly, maliciously, or with conscious indifference to the consequences of his actions; hence, he would not be liable for punitive damages. We are thus not persuaded by Appellant's argument that a defendant should be insulated from punitive damages if he suffers from any mental disease or defect, regardless of how severe or how it affects his ability to conform his behavior to the requirements of the law. Furthermore, Appellant's argument that it was error to award punitive damages in this case ignores the evidence presented at trial pertaining to Edwards's state of mind at the time of the incident. Dr. Gene Reid, a psychiatrist testifying for the defense, testified that he concluded that Edwards was suffering from an episode of what was apparently a recurring psychotic disorder. He stated that Edwards believed that his wife was having an affair in order to get drugs, and that his main concern was that people were going to enslave her to cocaine and eventually kill her and him. He diagnosed Edwards as having bipolar disorder, mixed typed, because he had some depressive symptoms present at the same time with psychotic features. He indicated that delusions are psychotic symptoms. He stated that at the time Edwards kidnapped Stills, he was no longer able to conform his behavior to the law. Nevertheless, he stated that Edwards knew that what he was doing was illegal and wrong and could get him in a lot of trouble. Moreover, on cross-examination, Dr. Reid stated that had a police officer been present in the basement where Edwards had kidnapped Stills, Edwards would have been able to conform his behavior to the requirements of the law. He also stated that Edwards was capable of forming the intent to wrongfully threaten Stills; to touch, strike, or beat Stills; to restrain Stills's freedom; and to tie up Stills, pour acid on him, and threaten to kill him. Dr. Michael G. Holloman, a staff psychiatrist at the Ozark Guidance Center in Springdale, testified that based on his interview of Edwards in March 1995, he believed that on the date in question, Edwards knew that he had done something that could be perceived as wrong, but he felt that what he was doing was right. Dr. Philip Barling, a clinical psychologist from Fort Smith, testified in rebuttal for Appellees. Dr. Barling stated that he reviewed copies of Edwards's medical records, including the reports from Dr. Reid and Dr. Holloman. He stated that it was his opinion that on the date in question Edwards did appreciate that what he was doing was illegal and had the capacity to conform his behavior to the requirements of the law. He found significant the fact that on the morning of the incident, Edwards met with Stills in one location, drove with him alone to the fire station, and went through a business meeting without harming Stills. He stated that such behavior shows that Edwards exercised some self-control during the time that he was with Stills. He stated that such self-control historically is a principal part of determining whether someone has the capacity to conform their behavior to the requirements of the law. He stated that if a person were truly unable to conform his behavior to the requirements of the law, that person would not be able to stop at any time. Dr. Barling also found significant Dr. Reid's records reflecting an incident in which Edwards told Dr. Reid that he had begun telling a psychologist (presumably Dr. Karen Courchaine) about his plan to kidnap Stills, a week prior to the incident. The records reflect that when the psychologist told Edwards that she could not guarantee confidentiality of such a plan, Edwards chose not to reveal the plan further. Dr. Barling stated that this was evidence of Edwards's ability to exercise self-restraint. He stated that his opinion that Edwards had the ability to conform his actions to the requirements of the law was strengthened by Dr. Reid's testimony that Edwards could have stopped at any time, and that he could have conformed his behavior had a police officer been present that day in the basement. After hearing the evidence pertaining to Edwards's mental state, the jury specifically found that he committed the tort of outrage by forming the intent to willfully and wantonly engage in extreme and outrageous conduct against Stills. The jury found further that Edwards did not lack the capacity, as a result of mental disease or defect, to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law or to appreciate the criminality of his conduct. We conclude that the evidence supports the jury's findings and the award of punitive damages on the basis that Edwards acted wantonly or with such conscious indifference to the consequences of his acts, such that malice may be inferred.