Court Opinion

ID: 9598463
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:09:12.521219+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:09.212971
License: Public Domain

HALL, Justice
(concurring and dissenting):
I agree that the trial judge did not err in denying the respective motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial. However, I do not agree that he erred in remitting a portion of the punitive damages awarded. Rather, due to his advantaged position, I would defer to the judgment of the trial judge and would not disturb his findings by substituting our judgment for his.
The trial judge was in a unique position which afforded him the opportunity to observe the matter first hand and to sense the events and personalities involved and thus to guard against an award of punitive damages reflective of passion or animus. His determination that the damages in question must bear some reasonable relationship to the injury and actual damages suffered is in accord with the general rule of law on the subject.
The main opinion cites the case of Nash v. Craigco, Inc.1 as authority for the proposition that we no longer adhere to the general rule and that punitive damages need not necessarily bear a reasonable relation to actual damages. I do not so view that case.
The facts in Nash v. Craigco are wholly different from those in the instant case. The plaintiff therein sought only equitable relief in the form of an order compelling compliance with an agreement to convey shares of stock and for punitive damages based upon the breach of a fiduciary duty. No actual- money damages having been sought or obtained, the sole question presented on appeal was whether punitive damages were allowable in an equitable proceeding where relief other than financial was sought. In response to that question, this Court simply held that an award of compensatory damages is not a prerequisite to an award of punitive damages. Such a holding in no way disturbs the general rule, that if compensatory damages are awarded, then any punitive damages also awarded must bear some reasonable relation thereto.
In the case before us, both actual and punitive damages have been awarded. Hence, the general rule applies and the award of punitive damages should bear some reasonable relation to the award of actual damages.
I would affirm the judgment of the trial judge in all respects.
CROCKETT, C. J., concurs in the views expressed in the concurring and dissenting opinion of HALL, J.

. Utah, 585 P.2d 775 (1978).