Opinion ID: 1116081
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: cross-appeal punitive damages

Text: The circuit judge refused Penley's requested instructions on punitive damages. Penley has cross-appealed, contending sufficient evidence was adduced to authorize jury consideration of punitive damages. Counsel for Penley have cited three cases in support of the cross-appeal: T.C.L., Inc. v. LaCoste, 431 So.2d 918 (Miss. 1983); Tideway Oil Programs, Inc. v. Serio, 431 So.2d 454 (Miss. 1983); and Consolidated American Life Insurance Co. v. Toche, 410 So.2d 1303 (Miss. 1982). While each of these cases involving breach of contract announces general principles governing punitive damages, counsel fails to enlighten us how the negligence in this case, which we agree was substantial, can justify punitive damages. Indeed, they do not attempt to do so. Counsel have established an isolated episode involving negligence, no more. We cannot say the circuit judge erred in refusing the requested punitive damages instructions. We affirm on the cross-appeal. If the plaintiff within fifteen days accepts a remittitur of $35,000, the judgment will be affirmed for $65,000 plus interest from date of judgment. Otherwise the judgment will be reversed and remanded for a new trial on damages only. AFFIRMED ON CROSS-APPEAL. AFFIRMED ON DIRECT APPEAL ON CONDITION OF REMITTITUR. WALKER, C.J., ROY NOBLE LEE, P.J., and DAN M. LEE, PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN, ANDERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.