- 6 -
damages, and the amount thereof, are matters confided to you for
decision.
The District Court Judge instructed the jury respecting punitive damages
generally that--
In addition to the actual damages set out above, plaintiff's
complaint seeks to recover what is known in law as punitive
damages. These damages are not compensatory in the ordinary sense
but are allowed by way of punishment to restrain defendant or
others from the commission of like acts in the future. You are
instructed that the law permits but does not require a jury to
allow punitive damages in certain cases if it is found by the jury
that the act causing the injury complained of is malicious or
wanton.
On December 30, 1982, the jury returned verdicts in favor of petitioner
on all four remaining claims and awarded petitioner actual and punitive
damages in the following amounts:
Claim Damages
Actual Punitive
Tortious interference
with present employment $150,000 $500,000
Tortious interference
with future employment 100,000 250,000
Libel 1,000,000 5,000,000
Invasion of privacy 250,000 1,500,000
Total 1,500,000 7,250,000
On January 10, 1983, IBP filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the
verdict or alternatively for a new trial. IBP's motion contained a number of
arguments, including the argument that the damages awarded on the libel claim
were duplicated by the awards on the other claims. On June 24, 1983, the
District Court entered an order granting IBP's motion with respect to the
invasion of privacy claim on the grounds that the award on that claim was
duplicative of the award on the libel claim and dismissed that claim. IBP
appealed the judgment on the three remaining claims to the Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting
en banc: (1) Reversed the judgment on the libel claim and remanded it for a
new trial with instructions; (2) affirmed the judgment on the tortious
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011