Court Opinion

ID: 9528407
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:40:53.982076+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:05.913937
License: Public Domain

CRIPPEN, Judge
(dissenting):
1. Defamation damages.
For more than a decade punitive damage awards have been specially scrutinized in Minnesota. Not until today, however, has an appellate court simply substituted its judgment for a jury’s finding of fact on the measure of punitive damages.1
*680No doubt an award of punitive damages has characteristics of open-endedness and volatility. See Hodder v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 426 N.W.2d 826, 835 (Minn. 1988), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 926, 109 S.Ct. 3265, 106 L.Ed.2d 610 (1989). Thus, the Minnesota Legislature determined in 1978 that punitive damages are permissible only when “the acts of the defendant show a willful indifference to the rights or safety of others.” 1978 Minn.Laws ch. 738, § 4 (codified at Minn.Stat. § 549.20, subd. 1(a) (1978)).2 In addition, this circumstance must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Id. The purpose of punitive damages is “to punish and deter” this conduct, Hodder, 426 N.W.2d at 837, and the 1978 legislation mandated that punitive damages be measured by the statutory factors bearing on this purpose. 1978 Minn.Laws ch. 738, § 4 (codified at Minn. Stat. § 549.20, subd. 3 (1978)). These legislative enactments were aimed at limiting the frequency and amounts of punitive damage awards. Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y, 389 N.W.2d 876, 891 (Minn.1986). With the same cautious spirit, the imposition of these awards is to be closely controlled by judges. Hodder, 426 N.W.2d at 835. To achieve this goal of awards that reflect “proportionality between the egregious misconduct and the amount of damages,” it is appropriate on our part to adjust for mistaken notions of the jury which are properly demonstrated. Id. at 837.
Here, no mistakes are evident. The topic on appeal is solely an alleged excess in the award. In this respect, “we will not disturb the award on appeal unless it is so excessive as to be unreasonable.” Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., 297 N.W.2d 252, 259 (Minn.1980). In my opinion, our decision here begins and ends with a vital maxim of Minnesota law:
The law is well settled in this jurisdiction that in examining a verdict on appeal the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and the verdict must be sustained if it is possible to do so on any reasonable theory of evidence.
Carpenter v. Mattison, 300 Minn. 273, 276, 219 N.W.2d 625, 628-29 (1974).
It is undisputed that the trial court properly instructed the jury on the measure of punitive damages, focusing on the standards prescribed in the governing statute. Taking into account the statutory factors, there is ample evidence to sustain the jury’s measure of damages. Defamation of character as a condition of employment is unacceptable to Minnesota citizens, especially when committed by highly visible employers. As in this instance, the practice falsely justifies employment decisions the employer deems important for the profitable operation of its business. Concealing the real facts is characteristic of defamation and especially characteristic of the employer’s conduct here. The defamation in this case was perpetrated by high level employees, making the corporation fully aware of its own abusive act. The jury properly took into account the net worth of the appellant corporation.
According to the governing statute, the factfinder also must consider the effect of *681other punishment likely to be imposed upon the defendant “as a result of the misconduct.” Minn.Stat. § 549.20, subd. 3 (1988). The only misconduct considered by the jury was a group of alleged defamatory statements. Appellant encountered no other punishment as a result of the defamation.
2. Extraneous considerations?
The preceding analysis is conditional, dependent on our judgment that the jury did not mistakenly consider human rights offenses while assessing punitive damages for tortious defamation. The record does not permit a conclusion this mistake occurred.
It is fundamental in this regard that neither party has challenged on appeal the verdict form submitted to the jury or the employment of a single trial proceeding on fact issues both for the jury and the trial judge.3 More particularly, neither party disputes that this document properly posed a question of punitive damages specifically needed to punish and deter appellant for its defamation.4 In addition, nothing in the trial court’s instructions permitted the jury to mix into the statutory punitive damage factors any considerations regarding earlier misconduct that led to the termination of respondent’s employment. No additional cautionary or clarifying instructions were requested. Nothing in the instructions or the verdict form invited the jury to measure punitive damages by looking beyond defamatory statements to consider other conduct evidencing appellant’s state of mind.
3. Human rights penalty.
I share with the majority a concern for the fact that appellant was penalized for two acts that occurred consecutively in appellant’s dealings with a single employee. In the final analysis, however, the record demonstrates that each of the penalties was separately determined on a separate set of facts. There was not a double recovery.
As already observed, the jury’s punitive damage award was specifically premised on the use of defamatory statements demonstrating willful indifference to the rights of respondent. In a wholly separate decision, the trial judge determined penalties for discriminatory conduct with disciplined regard for standards governing Minnesota Human Rights Act violations. In sum, two violations occurred, and each was separately penalized.
I respectfully dissent from the decision to alter the jury’s verdict.

. In Stanger v. Gordon, 309 Minn. 215, 222, 244 N.W.2d 628, 632 (1976), the supreme court, *680mindful that it was "intruding on a function addressed almost entirely to the trial judge’s discretion,” reduced an award by $5400 to correct observable effects of prejudicial misconduct by plaintiffs counsel; the remaining award of $7500 equaled the amount plaintiff had asked the jury to award. In Hodder v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 426 N.W.2d 826, 835-37 (Minn. 1988), cert, denied, 492 U.S. 926, 109 S.Ct. 3265, 106 L.Ed.2d 610 (1989), the court premised a damage award reduction on substantial, observable mistakes in the rationale employed by the jury. In Evans v. Blesi, 345 N.W.2d 775, 780 (Minn.App.1984) this court halved a punitive damage award but expressly in deference to the wishes of the trial court judge who evaluated the issue after the case had been appealed. Finally, in Estate of Hartz v. Nelson, 437 N.W.2d 749, 755-57 (Minn.App.1989), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. July 12, 1989) this court remanded a punitive damages award. Hartz may be a precursor of our decision today, in that it specifically determines an award was excessive; however, the error demonstrated in Hartz is unique, involving, inter alia, an individual defendant and a record which includes no evidence as to the defendant’s financial resources.

. The standard was recently modified to substitute "deliberate disregard" for “willful indifference.” 1990 Minn.Laws, ch. 555, § 15 (amending Minn.Stat. § 549.20, subd. 1 (1988)).

. The admission of evidence on a discrimination claim of employee Marcea Mariana, one element of the case decided by the trial judge, is raised as an issue on appeal. This evidence was also relevant to issues before the jury and I share the conclusion of the majority that admission of the evidence did not constitute reversible error.

. Section C of the verdict form, including questions 9 through 21, is entitled “DEFAMATION.” Question 19 asks for determination of compensatory damages for defamatory statements. Question 20 asks whether specified statements, each addressed separately, demonstrate a willful indifference on the part of appellant to the rights of others. Question 21 asks what amount of punitive damages needed to punish and deter appellant and others "from similar conduct.” The jury was told to answer question 21 only if it answered yes to any subpart of question 20. The verdict form instructed the jury that it could not award punitive damages on other subjects of its verdict, namely, promissory es-toppel and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.