Opinion ID: 681035
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: other errors as to defendant christopher

Text: 38 Although the jury found in favor of Rice on his defamation and intentional interference claims, it awarded him zero damages. Unlike the district court, I would AFFIRM these jury verdicts. There is no contention by plaintiff but that the jury was properly instructed with respect to his claims of defamation and intentional interference. The majority acknowledges serious doubt that Rice actually suffered pecuniary injury or that he was hurt in any very palpable sense  by defendants' actions in terminating him. The jury specifically found no compensatory damages proven against defendant Christopher, and I believe it was justified in reaching this verdict, inconsistent as it may have been, with respect to a finding of punitive damages against either defendant. 39 Illinois courts have held that where actual damages are not recoverable, there can be no award for punitive damages. Shrout v. McDonald's System, Inc., 90 Ill.App.2d 60, 234 N.E.2d 45 (1967), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 951, 89 S.Ct. 375, 21 L.Ed.2d 363 (1968). This is in conformity with general law on this subject. See 25 C.J.S. Damages, Sec. 118 (1966). The basic rule in Illinois is that punitive or exemplary damages may not be awarded in the absence of actual damages.... This rule has been followed consistently in Illinois. Tonchen v. All-Steel Equip., Inc., 13 Ill.App.3d 454, 300 N.E.2d 616, 624 (1973). 40 Furthermore, 41 The courts of Illinois have repeatedly stated that punitive or exemplary damages are not a favorite of the law. City of Chicago v. Shayne, 46 Ill.App.2d 33, 196 N.E.2d 521 (1964); Wetmore v. Ladies of Loretto, 73 Ill.App.2d 454, 220 N.E.2d 491 (1966). 42 Tonchen, 300 N.E.2d at 624. Under Illinois law, then, as well as under Massachusetts law, there can be no recovery of punitive damages against Christopher even if personal jurisdiction over him existed. I would conclude that the magistrate judge was in error in granting plaintiff's motion to amend the judgment to hold Christopher jointly and severally liable for $10,000 in actual damages the jury awarded against Nova only. 43 I believe that a case cited by plaintiff actually lends support for this conclusion with respect to liability for damages: 44 Illinois courts [have] determined that a jury verdict which simply found one codefendant negligent necessarily exculpated the remaining defendant, for the finding that the second defendant was not liable was reasonably implicit in the jury verdict. Sesterhenn v. Saxe, 88 Ill.App.2d 2, 232 N.E.2d 277 (1967). 45 Musgrave v. Union Carbide Corp., 493 F.2d 224, 232 (7th Cir.1974). 46 For these reasons, I would conclude that there was lack of personal jurisdiction over Christopher, but if jurisdiction were found somehow appropriate, that plaintiff is entitled to no damages against Christopher under the jury verdicts and Illinois law. I have assumed as to damages that Illinois law applies; if Massachusetts law applies the result would be the same.