Court Opinion

ID: 9760552
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:00:15.744387+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:13.577964
License: Public Domain

DROWOTA, Justice,
dissenting.
As the author of Breault v. Friedli, 610 S.W.2d 134 (Tenn.App.1980), I would like to reiterate and expand upon what Justice Fones has articulated about Breault in the majority opinion. In Breault, the issue raised on the Rule 9 Interlocutory Appeal was whether defendants may be compelled by means of discovery to answer questions *755concerning personal assets, liabilities and financial status. The Breault court held “that a defendant’s wealth in an action for punitive damages meets the test in Rule 26.02(1) [T.R.C.P.] of relevancy to the subject matter.” [Emphasis added]. The defendants averred that this intrusion was unreasonable. In the context of the pre-trial discovery issue, the Breault court held that evidence of defendant’s financial condition was essential and thus discoverable. It was not the court’s intent in Breault to hold that it was mandatory to prove the financial condition of the defendants in order to sustain an award of punitive damages. As the amicus curiae brief points out, the language from Breault regarding the essentialness of proof of the defendant’s financial condition in a punitive damage case is dicta. That was not the issue in Breault. The primary issue was whether defendant’s financial condition was discoverable and the court held that it was.
As stated in Breault,
“under Tennessee law, a defendant’s financial worth is only one factor in determining punitive damages.
In assessing the damages, the jury should take into consideration the attending circumstances. So, particular matters which are to be considered are the nature or character of the act, the malice or wantonness of the act, the motive for the act, the manner in which it was committed, the injury intended or likely to result from a disregard of duty, the character and extent of the injury, and, according to some cases, the character of the parties, at least the character of defendant. In short, as a general rule, material matters to be considered in determining the amount are what will be a proper punishment for the offending person, and the deterrent effect of the award on others. Suzore v. Rutherford, 35 Tenn.App. 678, 251 S.W.2d 129, 131 (1952).”
610 S.W.2d at 138.
Having noted that the issue before us today was not addressed by the Breault court, I now take this opportunity to state that I believe evidence of a defendant’s financial condition is necessary to sustain an award of punitive damages. Punitive damages are intended to punish the defendant for his wrongful conduct and to deter others from similar conduct in the future. In order to punish a defendant, I feel it is necessary to know the financial condition of that defendant. To permit an award of punitive damages without proof of a defendant’s financial condition allows pure speculation on the part of a jury as to the amount of damages appropriate to punish a defendant. Four States have strongly urged that evidence of a defendant’s financial condition be presented.1
This case is a prime example of why the financial condition of a defendant is necessary in order to properly assess punitive damages. The jury awarded plaintiff $75,-000 in punitive damages against the defendant. The trial court reduced the jury’s verdict by 90% to $7,500. The majority opinion has given no good reason why it has affirmed such a substantial reduction. This remittitur by the trial judge has totally destroyed the jury verdict and was not justified. Foster v. Amcon International, *756Inc., 621 S.W.2d 142 (Tenn.1981). Plaintiff should be granted a new trial on the issue of punitive damages.

. Adel v. Parkhurst, 681 P.2d 886, 892 (Wyo.1984), “in the absence of evidence of a defendant’s wealth and financial condition an award of punitive damages cannot be sustained." U.S. through Farmers Home Admin. v. Redland, 695 P.2d 1031, 1040 (Wyo.1985), "an award of punitive damages cannot be here sustained because appellees did not satisfy their burden of presenting evidence of appellant’s financial worth.”
Nelson v. Jacobsen, 669 P.2d 1207, 1219 (Utah 1983), an award of punitive damages "could not be sustained because it was entered without adducing any evidence or making any findings of fact regarding defendant’s net worth or income.”
Jos. Schlitz Brewing v. Central Bev. Co., Inc., 172 Ind.App. 81, 359 N.E.2d 566, 581 (1977), "To properly assess the award of punitive damages, we think such factors as size and earning capacity of the wrongdoer should properly be considered.”
McDonough v. Jorda, 214 N.J.Super. 338, 519 A.2d 874, 879 (A.D.1986), "In assessing exemplary damages, a jury must take into consideration the wealth of the defendants. This is so because the theory behind punitive damages is to punish for the past event and to prevent future offenses, and the degree of punishment resulting from a judgment must be, to some extent, in proportion to the means of the guilty person.”