Court Opinion

ID: 9617845
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:02:10.456507+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:17.885188
License: Public Domain

*806Hunt, Justice,
concurring specially.
I write separately to express my disagreement with the reasons stated in Divisions 2, 3 and 4, for declining to answer the second certified question. The majority declines to answer on the grounds that the trial court’s erroneous charge (to which neither party objected) resulted in an award of punitive damages based on something other than Georgia law. Neither that conclusion nor the use of it as a reason not to answer the question seems logical to me.
There are, however, two reasons upon which to decline and which bear directly on the certified question itself. First, the question basically asks us to decide whether the facts of this case create a jury issue as to punitive damages — that is, a determination of the sufficiency of the evidence. I do not believe this type of question is contemplated under our Rule 37, dealing with certified questions. Secondly, the federal standard of appellate review as to the sufficiency of the evidence differs somewhat from that adopted by our state courts,1 and the Eleventh Circuit follows the majority view that the federal test would apply under the facts of this diversity case. Brown-Marx *807Assoc., Ltd. v. Emigrant Savings Bank, 703 F2d 1361, 1367, fn. 5 (11th Cir. 1983).
Decided March 19, 1987.
Hoyle, Morris & Kerr, Lawrence T. Hoyle, Jr., Ralph A. Jacobs, William D. Barwick, A. Stephens Clay, Mara McRae, for appellant.
Michael J. Bruckman, Ronald L. Motley, Ann Kimmel, Richard H. Middleton, Jr.,for appellees.
Consequently, I would respectfully decline to answer the second question.

 Unlike our “any evidence” rule, the federal standard is whether, on a review of the evidence, reasonable men, exercising impartial judgment, may differ in their conclusion. If so, the verdict would stand. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Dutton, 585 F2d 1289, 1292 (5th Cir. 1979). See also Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2524.