Opinion ID: 1881709
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Did the Court err in failing to grant a larger remittitur?

Text: ¶ 49. Alpha contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant a larger remittitur. However, Alpha's brief appears to request relief in the form of a new trial, stating that an outrageous verdict cannot be cured by remittitur. In his cross-appeal brief, Jackson contends that the trial court erred by reducing the verdict of the jury to $500,000.00. ¶ 50. The standard of review to determine whether a jury verdict is excessive in a particular case is as follows: The damages, therefore, must be so excessive as to strike mankind, at first blush, as being beyond all measure, unreasonable, and outrageous, and such as manifestly show the Jury to have been actuated by passion, partiality, prejudice, or corruption. In short, the damages must be flagrantly outrageous and extravagant, where they have no standard by which to ascertain the excess. Wells Fargo Armored Serv. Corp. v. Turner, 543 So.2d 154, 158 (Miss.1989)(citing Detroit Marine Eng'g v. McRee, 510 So.2d 462 (Miss.1987)). However, this Court has held that a jury verdict cannot be disturbed simply because the amount of damages seems to be either too high or too low. C & C Trucking Co. v. Smith, 612 So.2d at 1106. ¶ 51. In malicious prosecution cases in particular, a person is entitled to recover damages for harm to his reputation as a result of criminal proceedings against him and for mental anguish and distress causally resulting from the criminal proceedings. Junior Food Stores, Inc. v. Rice, 671 So.2d 67, 76 (Miss.1996). However, this Court recognized that there is difficulty in quantifying monetary awards in cases involving malicious prosecution claims. Id. at 77; C & C Trucking, 612 So.2d at 1106. ¶ 52. Alpha relies in part on Woolfolk v. Tucker, 485 So.2d 1039 (Miss.1986), which is a case that deals with a malicious prosecution claim. However, the facts of the case sub judice are far more egregious than those outlined in Woolfolk. In Woolfolk, Tucker contracted to do electrical work for Woolfolk. Id. A dispute arose as to payment for additional work performed by Tucker. Id. Subsequently, an argument ensued and a warrant was issued for Tucker's arrest for disorderly conduct. Id. However, Tucker was never taken into physical custody, and did not have to make bail. Id. The only witnesses to the incident that prompted the warrant for disorderly conduct were Tucker and Woolfolk. Id. ¶ 53. In Jackson's case we have the unusual benefit of having a videotaped account of the events that transpired. Therefore, this Court did not have to rely solely on the cold testimony of the witnesses at trial, rather the videotape provided true insight into the sequence of events that Jackson endured at the casino. The videotape speaks volumes in the case before us today. The video illustrated Jackson being surrounded by security guards, handcuffed and escorted out of the crowded casino to the holding cell. The videotape also shows Jackson's demeanor and his verbal interaction with casino employees while in the holding area. Later, the videotape shows Jackson, again, being escorted out of the crowded casino to be taken to the police station. ¶ 54. The record also reflects testimony as to damages. Jackson stated the he was embarrassed at having to tell his mother, sister and brother-in-law about the arrest. During the time between November 30, 1996, and his trial date of February 10, 1997, Jackson was worried that the military might find out about the arrest and that he would possibly be charged with conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman. Jackson testified that he was embarrassed at having to tell the five people, four of which were former subordinates of his at the Army Reserve Center in Greenville. Within the next two years, Jackson has to submit a renewal for his security application. Part of the application includes listing all arrests regardless of the outcome of the case. Even though the trial was over and his record had been expunged, he was embarrassed by the incident. In particular, Jackson was embarrassed about being escorted out of the casino in handcuffs, having to tell his mother and family, and having to tell the soldiers he commanded and ask for their help at trial. He also stated that he felt his reputation had been damaged as an officer in the United States Army, as a male in his family, as a male in the United States and as a black male in his community. Additionally, casino employees grabbed Jackson, pushed him over the main cage counter, placed his arms behind his back and handcuffed him. The guards twisted his arms in the process of restraining him. There were no acts by Jackson to justify this behavior. The videotape clearly proves this. ¶ 55. The lasting effects of an arrest can be devastating. Regardless of whether an arrest has been expunged, a person still must deal with an arrest. This Court has recognized that job applications commonly ask about arrests and the reason for the arrest. Junior Food Stores, Inc. v. Rice, 671 So.2d at 76. Similarly, these same types of questions appear on government forms or applications and frequently have a caveat that false information may be grounds for dismissal. Without diminishing the effect of an arrest, this Court finds that the evidence supports that the circuit court was within its discretion in granting a remittitur of $500,000.00 and Jackson is adequately compensated for his actual damages. The trial court found that there was a jury question as to liability and a new trial was not warranted if the remittitur was accepted by the plaintiff. The trial court considered facts pertinent to the elements the jury was instructed to consider for damages. Jackson had approximately $125.00 in bond fees; $750.00 in attorney's fees for representation for the disorderly conduct charge; and the jury instructions additionally allowed recovery for embarrassment and humiliation for false arrest and/or malicious prosecution; assault; and embarrassment, humiliation and injury to reputation. Therefore, the remittitur of the $1,000,000.00 jury verdict to $500,000.00 should be affirmed.