Court Opinion

ID: 9743698
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:40:44.461703+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:42.812931
License: Public Domain

ROBERTSON, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I respectfully dissent to that portion of the majority opinion which remands for a new trial on the question of punitive damages.
Best Beers' argument that the amount of punitive damages which were awarded can be sustained solely upon the evidence of Miller Brewing Company's financial position is legally sound. Assuming there was error in admitting evidence on the financial worth of Philip Morris, it would be harmless at best in my opinion. The amount of punitive damages awarded fits comfortably within the seope of the evidence as it relates to Milier Brewing Company.
Among other things, our standard of review requires the appellant to demonstrate reversible error, which I feel has not been done, and that the court on review is to indulge in all reasonable presumptions which support the judgment of the trial court. Raymundo v. Hammond Clinic Ass'n (1983), Ind.App., 449 N.E.2d 276. Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment.
In all other respects I concur in the majority opinion.