Peete v. Blackwell
504 So. 2d 222 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Punitive damages for assault and battery are permissible whenever the wrongful act is accompanied by an insult or other aggravating circumstances, and a challenge to the excessiveness of a jury verdict must be specifically raised in a post-trial motion to be preserved for appellate review.
Facts:
- In late December 1983, Dr. Robert W. Peete hospitalized a patient for a severe nosebleed and applied anterior and posterior nasal packs.
- On December 26, Dr. Peete was recalled to the hospital because the patient was bleeding profusely and the string securing the posterior pack had been cut.
- During this medical emergency, Dr. Peete needed to use a suction machine to clear blood from the patient's throat to retrieve the pack.
- Beverly S. Blackwell, the nurse in charge of the floor, was assisting Dr. Peete during this time.
- While assisting, Dr. Peete struck Blackwell on her forearm and demanded she 'turn on the [goddamn] suction.'
- Blackwell testified that she suffered no physical injury from being struck.
- Evidence was presented that prior to the incident, Dr. Peete had insulted hospital staff, cursed frequently, yelled, and slammed a patient's chart across a desk.
- Dr. Peete denied striking Blackwell during the incident.
Procedural Posture:
- Beverly Blackwell sued Dr. Robert Peete in a trial court (court of first instance) for assault and battery.
- Blackwell sought $1.00 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of Blackwell, awarding her $1.00 in compensatory damages and $10,000 in punitive damages.
- The trial court entered judgment on this jury verdict.
- Dr. Peete filed motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, for a new trial, or to alter or amend the judgment.
- The trial court did not rule on Peete's post-trial motions within 90 days, leading to their automatic denial under A.R.Civ.P. 59.1.
- Dr. Peete appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Alabama, arguing that the punitive damages were improperly awarded or excessive.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Was the jury's award of punitive damages for assault and battery against Dr. Peete improper due to insufficient evidence of aggravating circumstances, or was the award excessive, warranting reversal by the appellate court?
Opinions:
Majority - Court
No, the jury's award of punitive damages was not improper due to insufficient evidence of aggravating circumstances, and the court cannot review the claim of excessiveness because it was not properly preserved at the trial court level. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court found that there was at least a scintilla of evidence supporting aggravating circumstances, which is sufficient to send the question of punitive damages to the jury. This evidence included Dr. Peete's prior insulting behavior, frequent cursing, yelling, slamming a chart, and cursing at Nurse Blackwell during the emergency. While the emergency itself might suggest less aggravation, the court could not say that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the punitive damages award. Regarding the claim of excessiveness, the court noted that appellate courts are reluctant to disturb jury verdicts unless they clearly indicate bias, passion, prejudice, or a mistaken view of the merits. However, the court was foreclosed from addressing this issue because Dr. Peete's post-trial motions did not specifically challenge the verdict amount as excessive. Instead, the motions claimed the verdict was 'the result of bias and prejudice' or 'contrary to the law and evidence,' which was deemed insufficient to draw the trial court's attention to the specific issue of excessiveness and allow for potential remittitur.
Concurring - Houston, J.
Houston, J., concurred specially, stating that the excessiveness of the verdict was not properly presented for review. If it had been, he would have voted to send the case back for the trial court to reconsider the issue of reducing the damages (remittitur) according to established legal standards.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the long-standing Alabama rule that punitive damages in assault and battery cases require evidence of insult or other aggravating circumstances beyond the mere act itself. More importantly, it serves as a critical reminder of strict appellate preservation rules, specifically that a challenge to the excessiveness of a jury verdict must be raised with particular specificity at the trial court level to allow appellate review. Failure to explicitly argue that the amount of the verdict is excessive, even if arguing 'bias and prejudice,' will preclude appellate consideration of that issue.
