Court Opinion

ID: 9565922
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:30:16.844396+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:51.695630
License: Public Domain

Judge JOHNSON
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the majority’s holding that (1) the trial court correctly denied defendant’s motions for a directed verdict and for judgment n.o.v. and (2) that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to award plaintiff costs of depositions and expert witness fees. However, I dissent from the majority’s holding that the trial court erred in failing to submit an issue of punitive damages to the jury.
Plaintiff concedes that there is no evidence of “actual malice,” in the sense of personal ill-will, spite, or desire for revenge. However, plaintiff offers two theories in support of her claim for punitive damages: (1) plaintiff was wrongfully prosecuted in a manner evincing a reckless and wanton disregard of plaintiffs rights and (2) plaintiff was wrongfully prosecuted under circumstances of insult, rudeness or oppression. Plaintiff seeks punitive damages based upon the conduct of four of defendant’s employees: J. M. Lynch, a police officer of the city of Raleigh hired by defendant to handle its security problems; Karen Beasley, also hired by defendant in the capacity of a security officer; Blair Wall, defendant’s personnel manager; and Earl Barnes, defendant’s store manager. In an effort to demonstrate that defendant’s employees acted with actual malice, plaintiff relies upon the following circumstances: (1) Officer Lynch’s failure to immediately confront plaintiff about his suspicion of plaintiff prior to arresting her and Lynch’s testimony that he routinely tries to prove one’s guilt, (2) Officers Lynch and Beasley’s search of plaintiffs person and pocketbook, (3) statements Officer Lynch made to plaintiff while interrogating her, (4) Wall’s failure to “get involved” and obtain additional information about the facts surrounding plaintiffs arrest, (5) Barnes’ failure to talk to plaintiffs family and friends, and (6) the refusal of Officer Lynch to allow plaintiff to be transported by her father to the magistrate’s office.
The undisputed evidence shows that Wall did not “get involved” because it was a security problem being handled by de*323fendant’s security personnel, in whom Wall had confidence. Barnes was reluctant to talk with plaintiffs family and friends because of his confidence in the security personnel and the fact that he was out of town when plaintiff was arrested. After observing plaintiffs activities in the jewelry department on the morning of January 5, 1982, Officer Lynch continued to observe plaintiffs activities “to either corroborate (his) suspicions, or just to get the whole story that was going on that day.” Plaintiff was under arrest at the time a search of her person and pocketbook were made and the scope and manner in which the searches were conducted were reasonable. In transporting plaintiff in a police vehicle, Officer Lynch was following the guidelines of the Raleigh Police Department. It appears that plaintiff has taken Officer Lynch’s statement about his efforts to prove individuals guilty out of context. The full context in which the statement was made is as follows: On cross-examination Officer Lynch was asked, “And you weren’t interested in determining her (plaintiff) innocence, were you?” Officer Lynch answered, “Well, I don’t know exactly how I can answer that. As a police officer, I have to deal with the elements of a crime and gathering information. I don’t go trying to prove someone’s innocence, as much (as) I try to prove someone’s guilt routinely.” Clearly, when read in full context, the statement does not rise to the level of malice. None of the evidence of record is sufficient to support a claim for punitive damages and the court properly refused to submit a punitive damage issue.