Court Opinion

ID: 9630269
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:06:52.470947+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:35.115863
License: Public Domain

BAILEY, Chief Judge:
While I concur with the majority opinion in this case affirming the award of attorney’s fees to Appellant, I dissent from that part of the opinion which reverses the Trial Court’s remittitur of punitive damages. In that regard, I believe that 23 O.S.1987 Supp. § 9 and 85 O.S.1987 Supp. § 6 may be read in pari materia. Clearly on the one hand, 85 O.S. § 6 limits awards of punitive damages to less than $100,000 in retaliatory discharge cases within its scope. Section 9 of Title Twenty-three, on the other hand, specifically prohibits an any award of punitive damages in excess of actual damages, unless the Court, on the record and outside the presence of the jury, makes a prima facie determination of the sufficiency of plaintiff’s evidence of fraud, malice or oppression. Reading the two provisions together, I believe the legislative intent must have been to limit punitive damages in retaliatory discharge cases to $100,000 or less (85 O.S. § 6), but in no event should punitive damages exceed actual damages awarded unless the Trial Court determines, on the record, the sufficiency of plaintiff’s proof of entitlement to punitive damages. In the presence ease, I find no record of such a finding by the Trial Court, and by the clear mandate of 23 O.S. § 9, the Trial Court was required to order a remittitur of punitive damages insofar as the punitive damages awarded exceeded the actual damages awarded by the jury.
I therefore respectfully concur in part, and dissent in part.