Court Opinion

ID: 9855938
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:34:33.719298+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:37:18.007835
License: Public Domain

Justice KITTREDGE,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in part and dissent in part. I join the well-written majority opinion of Justice Beatty save two exceptions. Concerning the trial court’s failure to grant a directed verdict due to the lack of evidence of fair market value and the election of remedies issue, I join the dissent of Justice Pleicones. Additionally, regarding the reprehensibility prong of the punitive *66damages analysis, I believe Justice Pleicones is correct in rejecting any reliance on Stokes-Craven’s practice of not showing titles to customers because the Federal Odometer Act claim fails as a matter of law. I nevertheless join the majority in affirming the punitive damages award. I believe there was ample evidence of Stokes-Craven’s reprehensibility (which I do not view as “mild”) beyond its failure to show titles to customers. I otherwise concur with the majority opinion’s analysis regarding the punitive damages award.
TOAL, C.J., concurs.