Boise Dodge, Inc. v. Clark

Supreme Court of Idaho
453 P.2d 551 (1969)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A corporation may be held liable for punitive damages for the fraudulent acts of its managing agents where the corporation participated in, authorized, or ratified the misconduct. An award of punitive damages need not adhere to a strict mathematical ratio to actual damages but must bear a reasonable relation to the overall circumstances, serving to punish the wrongdoer and deter similar calculated commercial fraud.

Facts:

In January 1967, Boise Dodge, Inc.'s management decided to sell several 1966 'demonstrator' cars.
The general manager of Boise Dodge, Jack E. Day, either ordered or knowingly permitted the odometers on these cars to be rolled back.
The odometer on a Dodge Monaco was reset from 6,968 miles to 165 miles before it was put up for sale.
On February 2, 1967, salesmen for Boise Dodge represented this car to Robert Clark as 'new,' explaining the 165 miles were from normal driving around the dealership premises.
Clark agreed to purchase the car, trading in his old vehicle and providing two checks for the balance.
The purchase agreement Clark received had the word 'Demo' written under the heading 'Used.'
After the sale, Clark discovered facts that led him to believe he had been deceived and, on February 5, 1967, stopped payment on the two checks.

Procedural Posture:

Boise Dodge, Inc. filed suit against Robert Clark in district court to enforce payment on two checks Clark had stopped.
Clark filed a counterclaim against Boise Dodge, Inc., alleging breach of contract, deceit, and seeking punitive damages.
The trial court dismissed Clark's counterclaim for wrongful attachment but allowed the claims for breach of contract, deceit, and punitive damages to proceed to a jury.
The court ruled as a matter of law that Clark had affirmed the contract and waived his right to rescind it.
The jury returned a verdict for Boise Dodge in the amount of $2,062 on its claim and for Clark on his counterclaim in the amount of $350 for actual damages and $12,500 for punitive damages.
The district court entered a judgment consistent with the jury's verdict.
Boise Dodge, Inc. (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Idaho, challenging the punitive damages award.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is an award of substantial punitive damages against a corporation proper where its managing agent directed employees to fraudulently roll back odometers on cars for sale, the corporation ratified the act, and the resulting actual damages to the consumer were comparatively small?

Opinions:

Majority - McQuade, Justice

Yes, the award of punitive damages was proper. A corporation is liable for punitive damages for the acts of its managing agents when it participates in, authorizes, or ratifies the wrongdoing. Here, the general manager's knowledge of the odometer rollback constituted corporate ratification and participation in the fraud. Punitive damages are available in actions involving willful fraud, even if the claim is technically for breach of contract, to punish the wrongdoer and deter others. While the amount must bear a 'reasonable relation' to the actual damages, this does not require a strict mathematical ratio. Instead, the award is justified by an overall appraisal of the circumstances, including the culpability of the defendant's conduct, the degree of calculation involved, and the need to deter calculated commercial fraud aimed at the general public. In cases of deliberate, systematic fraud for profit, a large punitive award is often necessary to have a meaningful deterrent effect beyond simply forcing the wrongdoer to return the profits of their misconduct.

Analysis:

This case solidifies the principle that a corporation cannot insulate itself from liability for punitive damages for the fraudulent acts committed by its managing agents. It establishes that the primary purpose of punitive damages in commercial fraud cases is deterrence, justifying awards that may seem disproportionate to the actual damages sustained by a single victim. The court's rejection of a strict mathematical ratio in favor of an 'overall appraisal of the circumstances' provides courts with flexibility to punish and deter corporate misconduct that targets the public, even when individual financial harm is minimal. This precedent significantly strengthens consumer protection against calculated business fraud by increasing the financial risk for perpetrators.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Boise Dodge, Inc. v. Clark (1969)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature