Court Opinion

ID: 9581221
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:12:44.304257+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:47.033720
License: Public Domain

*324Littlejohn, Acting Associate Justice
(concurring in part, dissenting in part):
I am in partial disagreement with the majority opinion. That disagreement grows out of the fact that I do not think that the issues of liability for fraud and of damages for fraud, actual and punitive, are so inextricably intertwined as to require consideration by a single trier of fact in order to bring about a fair verdict.
Litigation is expensive, not only to the litigants but to the taxpayers as well. The modern tendency in the interest of judicial economy is to avoid new trials where verdicts are in debate if the will of the jury can be ascertained and given effect. In 76 Am. Jur. (2d) Trial § 1208, we find:
A verdict in a civil case which is defective or erroneous as to a mere matter of form not affecting the merits or rights of the parties may be amended by the court to conform it to the issues and to give effect to what the jury unmistakably found. In fact, it is the duty of the judge to look after its form and substance, so as to prevent a doubtful or insufficient finding from passing into the records of the court, and every reasonable construction should be adopted for the purpose of working the verdict into form so as to make it serve. Thus, when the intent of the jury is apparent, their verdict will he sufficient to sustain a judgment entered in conformity with the intent of the verdict. (Emphasis added.)
I would let the punitive damages stand and remand the case to the trial court as ordered by the Court of Appeals, and give to the Reids the alternative of going to trial as to only actual damages unless they elect to remit the excess of actual damages in the amount of $15,000. This represents the maximum effect of the error. It could be corrected at the option of the Reids without the necessity of a new trial.