Opinion ID: 2494143
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Gore Guidepost of Disparity Between the Damage and the Award and Green Oil Factors (3) and (4)

Text: The final Gore guidepost we will consider is the disparity between the actual or potential harm suffered by the plaintiff and the punitive damages award. Campbell, 538 U.S. at 418, 123 S.Ct. 1513. The Rosen-Ragers' complaint does not include claims based on personal injury. There is only the potential for personal injury each time Ross's practice of deliberately ignoring certificates of redemption brings competing claimants for the same property into direct physical contact. Also, `[i]f the wrongful conduct was profitable to the defendant, the punitive damages should remove the profit and should be in excess of the profit, so that the defendant recognizes a loss.... The financial position of the defendant [is also] relevant.' Green Oil, 539 So.2d at 223 (quoting Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lavoie, 505 So.2d 1050, 1062 (Ala.1987) (Houston, J., concurring specially) (factor (3))). Ross profits from this scheme by keeping tenants on properties until they are evicted by judicial action, in some cases, long after the issuance of the certificates of redemption. In this case, Hurt and Baxter paid Ross approximately $1,000 in rent. Although Ross values his assets at $1,167,000, his testimony at the Hammond hearing regarding his financial condition was confusing, at best, and failed to establish anything definitive regarding his status. ( Green Oil factor (4).) In that connection, the circuit court stated: Ross has not provided this court credible evidence upon which to fully judge his financial condition. Indeed, the evidence he did offer as to his financial condition was referable only to the time of trial and later, rather than to the time of the occurrence made the basis of the suit, as required by Ala.Code 1975, § 6-11-21(c), to establish the specific damages limitations provided in § 6-11-21(b) for a small business. Viewing these factors in toto, including the limited objective to be achieved and the absence of any actual personal injury, we conclude that a $120,000 punitive-damages award is sufficient to punish Ross and to deter further conduct similar to that evidenced in this case, without compromising his due-process rights.