Court Opinion

ID: 9938105
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 19:02:33.069945+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:42.822886
License: Public Domain

While I disagree with the main opinion in its citation ofKmart Corp. v. Kyles, 723 So.2d 572 (Ala. 1998), for the reasons stated in my special writing in Delchamps, Inc. v. Bryant,738 So.2d 824, 841-43 (Ala. 1999), the rationale of the main opinion in the case presently before us regarding remittitur of the compensatory damages including mostly mental anguish is consistent with the test I suggested in my Delchamps special writing at 738 So.2d 843. Paraphrasing that test, the evidence of mental anguish in the case before us is not of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment could reasonably infer the existence of $500,000 worth of damage to be compensated. On the other hand, the evidence in the case before us, all factors considered, is of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment could reasonably infer the existence of $75,000 worth of damage to be compensated, the quantum to which the main opinion remits the compensatory damage award. I agree with the main opinion that the plaintiff "simply did not present enough evidence to support a compensatory-damages award of $500,000 when her actual monetary loss was only $7,200."