Opinion ID: 2144415
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Were punitive damages properly awarded by the jury?

Text: The jury awarded punitive damages in the amount of $5,000 against Gary A. Martinson and $5,000 against GM Enterprises, Inc. The jury was instructed that: In an action founded upon fraud and deceit, if the wrongdoer has been guilty of malice or fraud ... you may award the injured party any further reasonable sum as an example to others and to punish the wrongdoer as you may deem just. The jury was also instructed that: [E]xemplary damages cannot be allowed against the Defendant ... unless you find that he wrongfully committed fraud or deceit or that he acted with malice or fraud.... The North Dakota Century Code provides that a jury may give exemplary damages, [I]n any action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, when the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice .... § 32-03-07, N.D. C.C. The instructions given to the jury in this case simply indicate that when a defendant has been guilty of fraud, exemplary damages are proper. That instruction is consistent with Section 32-03-07, N.D.C.C. The issue then becomes whether or not the instruction was proper in this case. As discussed previously in this opinion, because the jury was instructed they could award punitive damages only if they found fraud, and the jury is assumed to have followed the instructions, we conclude that the jury found Martinson committed fraud. Martinson's obligation to not make fraudulent representations to Powers arises from law, not contract. The breach of that obligation, therefore, allows the jury to award exemplary damages under the provisions of Section 32-03-07, N.D.C.C. The jury also awarded punitive damages against GM Enterprises, Inc., in the amount of $5,000. Martinson contends that the award was improper because GM Enterprises, Inc., did not own the apartment building, nor did it participate in the sale. A review of the record, however, discloses that the jury could have properly found that GM Enterprises, Inc. was involved in the sale. Our review of questions of fact is limited to consideration of whether or not there is substantial evidence to sustain the jury verdict. Buehner v. Hoeven, 228 N.W.2d 893, 904 (N.D.1975). In determining whether or not there is substantial evidence to sustain the verdict, we will not invade the province of the jury to weigh evidence or to determine the credibility of witnesses. In reviewing the evidence, we will view it in the light most favorable to the verdict and if there is substantial evidence to support the verdict, we will not set it aside. Id. Exhibit 15 is a copy of a work agreement between GM Enterprises, Inc., and James W. Powers. The agreement provides for the repair of several items on the apartment building. It reads in relevant part as follows: This agreement entered into this the 26th day of October, 1977 by GM Enterprises, Inc., Seller, and James W. Powers, Buyer .... It is signed: GM Enterprises, Inc. /s/ Gary Martinson We conclude that because this agreement between the parties refers to GM Enterprises, Inc., as the seller, the jury was justified in concluding that Gary Martinson represented GM Enterprises, Inc., as the seller. Accordingly, the contention that punitive damages were improperly awarded in this case is without merit, there being substantial evidence to support the verdict of $5,000 in punitive damages against both Martinson and GM Enterprises, Inc.