DocketNumber: Nos. 23930 and 23939.
Citation Numbers: 895 N.E.2d 875, 177 Ohio App. 3d 679, 2008 Ohio 3957
Judges: WHITMORE, Judge.
Filed Date: 8/6/2008
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023
{¶ 58} I concur in the thoughtful and well-reasoned opinion of the majority to the extent that it resolved assignments of error one, two, and three and cross-assignments of error three, four, five, and six. I must, however, respectfully dissent from the majority's overruling of Desai's first and second cross-assignments of error.
{¶ 59} As to Desai's first cross-assignment of error, he challenged the trial court's granting of Franklin's motion for directed verdict on the issue of punitive damages. Civ. R. 50(A)(4) requires the trial court, to construe all evidence in a light most favorable to Desai, the party against whom the motion was filed. Against the backdrop of that standard, it is clear that Desai produced clear and convincing evidence that Franklin consciously disregarded his rights, knowing it would result in substantial harm to Desai. The conduct of Franklin, a professional, can only be described as shocking. There is testimony in the record from which a jury could reasonably conclude that, although he was fully aware of the terms of a long-standing contract with Desai, Franklin secretly changed the terms, resulting in a substantial loss of income to Desai, withheld documents, forged signatures, and lied when confronted about these issues during a deposition taken under oath. Under these facts, I must respectfully dissent from the majority's finding that the trial court did not err in directing a verdict in favor of Franklin on the issue of punitive damages.
{¶ 60} The majority cites the award of compensatory damages and for prejudgment interest which Desai obtained, and then notes that Franklin was 83 years old at the time of trial. The majority sets out at ¶ 40 the appropriate factors for awarding punitive damages. The amount of compensatory damages, the fact of a prejudgment-interest award, or the age of the defendant is not among them. "`The jury is given wide discretion in determining whether punitive damages are justified and in assessing the amount of such damages-based upon its collective judgment as to the punitive and deterrent effect that such an award would have.'" Wright v. SuzukiMotor Corp., 4th Dist. Nos. 03CA2, 03CA3, 03CA4,
{¶ 61} As to the second cross-assignment of error, I would reverse the trial court's failure to submit to the jury the issue of attorney fees, as I find the record replete with evidence that Franklin acted with actual malice. Therefore, Desai was entitled to present to the jury his claim for attorney fees.
Estate of Draper v. Bank of America, N.A. , 288 Kan. 510 ( 2009 )
Blank v. Bluemile, Inc. , 2021 Ohio 2002 ( 2021 )
KN Excavation, L.L.C. v. Rockmill Brewey, L.L.C. , 2022 Ohio 3414 ( 2022 )
180 Degree Solutions, L.L.C. v. Metron Nutraceuticals, L.L.... , 2021 Ohio 2769 ( 2021 )
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Darkadakis , 2016 Ohio 7694 ( 2016 )
Alonso v. Thomas , 2021 Ohio 341 ( 2021 )
Berk Ents., Inc. v. Polivka , 2013 Ohio 4961 ( 2013 )
Stebbins Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Pragalos , 2013 Ohio 4949 ( 2013 )
North v. North, 24297 (12-10-2008) , 2008 Ohio 6438 ( 2008 )
Tesar Indus. Contractors v. Republic Steel , 113 N.E.3d 1126 ( 2018 )
Designers Choice, Inc. v. Attractive Floorings, L.L.C. , 2020 Ohio 4617 ( 2020 )
Musial Offices, Ltd. v. Cuyahoga Cty. , 2020 Ohio 3660 ( 2020 )