Molenaar v. United Cattle Co.
1996 Minn. App. LEXIS 870, 1996 WL 422488, 553 N.W.2d 424 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Punitive damages are recoverable for the intentional tort of conversion, even when the plaintiff suffers only property damage and no personal injury. The rule requiring personal injury as a prerequisite for punitive damages is limited to products liability actions.
Facts:
- Orville Molenaar purchased 65 heifers and arranged for their care and breeding at Michael Frank's farm.
- Molenaar's heifers were identified by blue ear tags, distinguishing them from cattle owned by United Cattle Company, which were also kept at Frank's farm and had white and yellow tags.
- United Cattle Company obtained a replevin order authorizing it to take possession of its own cattle from Frank's farm.
- On October 12, 1994, Dana Hansen, a United vice president, arrived at the farm to execute the order.
- Frank explicitly informed Hansen that the 65 heifers with blue ear tags belonged to Molenaar.
- Despite this warning, Hansen took all the cattle, including Molenaar's 65 heifers.
- Molenaar contacted United's attorney and Hansen, providing proof of ownership and demanding the return of his cattle, but they refused to disclose the animals' location.
- On November 18, 1994, United sold Molenaar's heifers, making them untraceable.
Procedural Posture:
- Orville Molenaar sued United Cattle Company for conversion in a Minnesota district court (trial court).
- The district court granted Molenaar's motion to amend his complaint to add a claim for punitive damages.
- A jury returned a verdict for Molenaar, awarding him $59,375 in compensatory damages and $400,000 in punitive damages.
- United Cattle Company filed a post-trial motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV) on liability, compensatory damages, and punitive damages.
- The district court granted the JNOV on punitive damages, vacating that part of the award, but denied the JNOV motion as to liability and compensatory damages.
- Molenaar (appellant) appealed the district court's decision to grant JNOV on punitive damages to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. United (cross-appellant) appealed the denial of JNOV on the other issues.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are punitive damages recoverable for the deliberate conversion of property when the plaintiff has not suffered a personal injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Lansing, Judge.
Yes. Punitive damages are recoverable for the deliberate conversion of property even when the plaintiff has not suffered a personal injury. Minnesota has a long-standing policy of allowing punitive damages for conversion to deter malicious disregard for property rights. The relevant statute, Minn. Stat. § 549.20, allows punitive damages for a defendant's 'deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others.' The term 'rights' encompasses property rights, not just the right to personal safety. Prior case law limiting punitive damages to cases involving personal injury, such as Independent Sch. Dist. No. 622 v. Keene Corp., applies only to products liability actions, not to intentional torts like conversion. Abolishing punitive damages for intentional property torts would remove a crucial deterrent, as a wrongdoer would only risk having to return the converted property, thus increasing the profitability of theft.
Dissenting - Peterson, Judge
No. Punitive damages should not be recoverable for property damage absent a personal injury. The majority misinterprets the supreme court's decision in Keene Corp., which explicitly stated that the policy prohibiting punitive damages for property-only claims was not limited to strict products liability cases. The reasoning in Keene was based on the type of injury suffered, not the theory of liability, reflecting the 'greater importance society places on protecting people' over property. The holding in Phelps, cited by the majority, is distinguishable because the plaintiff in that case recovered for mental anguish, which constitutes a form of personal injury. Therefore, the rule from Keene should apply broadly, barring punitive damages in any case where the plaintiff suffers only property damage.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies a significant ambiguity in Minnesota tort law regarding the availability of punitive damages. It explicitly confines the 'personal injury' requirement for punitive damages, established in cases like Keene, to the narrow context of products liability claims. By doing so, the court re-establishes the traditional common law rule that allows for punitive damages in cases of intentional property torts, like conversion, to punish wrongdoers and deter future misconduct. This ruling strengthens protections for property owners against willful deprivation and prevents a major shift in tort law that would have otherwise weakened such protections.
