Bierman v. Klapheke

• Decision Date: 16 April 1998
• Docket Number: Nos. 96-SC-1086-D,97-SC-710-DG,s. 96-SC-1086-D
• Citation: 967 S.W.2d 16
• Parties: Robert BIERMAN and Joyce Bierman, Appellants Cross-Appellees, v. William KLAPHEKE II, Appellee Cross-Appellant.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

Page 16

967 S.W.2d 16

Robert BIERMAN and Joyce Bierman, Appellants Cross-Appellees, v. William KLAPHEKE II, Appellee Cross-Appellant.

Nos. 96-SC-1086-DG, 97-SC-710-DG.

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

April 16, 1998.

As Amended May 8, 1998.

Matthew B. Troutman, Louisville, for Appellants Cross-Appellees.

Reginald L. Ayers, Bell, Orr, Ayers & Moore, Bowling Green, for Appellee Cross-Appellant.

WINTERSHEIMER, Justice.

This appeal is from a decision of the Court of Appeals overturning a jury verdict in a legal malpractice action. The jury awarded Robert Bierman a total of $109,518.29 in compensatory and punitive damages. The Court of Appeals struck down all but $4,980.35 of the compensatory award.

The questions presented are whether the Court of Appeals exercised the proper standard of review and made the proper determination on appeal; whether a directed verdict should have been granted because Bierman was fully compensated for all of his damages; whether the Court of Appeals applied the correct law holding that Klapheke was entitled to a directed verdict as to compensatory damages; whether the Court of Appeals was correct in holding that Klapheke was entitled to a directed verdict dismissing the claim for punitive damages; and on cross-appeal, whether it was error for the trial judge to permit testimony of a sitting Administrative Law Judge.

Bierman was injured in a work-related automobile accident when his vehicle was hit in the rear by a vehicle operated by Richard Duncan. In June of 1989, Bierman retained Klapheke to represent him and to prosecute a personal injury claim. Although Klapheke undertook the representation of Bierman, he never filed a workers' compensation claim or pursued payment of the remaining PIP benefits to which Bierman was entitled. Klapheke did not file a civil tort action against Duncan and his employers until September of 1991. In May of 1993, Klapheke obtained leave of court allowing him to amend the complaint in the tort claim, both to correct an error in the identification of Duncan's employers and to assert a claim against those two individuals. In July of 1993, after learning that Klapheke had been less than diligent in pursuing his claim, Bierman discharged him as his counsel.

In 1993, Bierman's new attorney filed the malpractice suit claiming that the pending tort action, the workers' compensation claim and the claim for the balance due as PIP benefits were all barred by the statute of limitations because of the negligence of Klapheke in failing to act promptly. It was also alleged that the loss of consortium claim of Joyce Bierman arising from the same accident was barred by limitations as a result of the negligence of Klapheke. The Biermans sought both compensatory and punitive damages.

The questions presented here are complicated by the fact that the collision was work related, thereby creating both third-party legal liability for damages in tort, and legal liability of Bierman's employer for workers' compensation. KRS 342.700(1) provides that although the injured party may claim both compensation benefits from the employer and tort damages from a third party, "he shall not collect from both."

The Court of Appeals ruled that the alleged ethical violations by the attorney in misrepresenting certain facts to the Biermans was not sufficient to justify an award of punitive damages pursuant to KRS 411.186 because the representation and untruths occurred after the attorney negligently permitted the statute of limitations to expire. The Court of Appeals panel also stated that there was no proof that the attorney intended to cause harm to the Biermans by allowing the statute to run. The Court of Appeals believed that the proof only showed that once the attorney had negligently let the time run, he tried to cover up the fact in order to protect his own interests. Both sides sought discretionary review which was granted by this Court.

I. Standard of Review

The proper standard of review by the Supreme Court is set out in NCAA v. Hornung, Ky., 754 S.W.2d 855 (1988), which states that when an appellate court is reviewing evidence supporting a judgment entered upon a jury verdict, the role of an appellate court is limited to determining whether the trial court erred in failing to grant the motion for a directed verdict. All evidence which favors the prevailing party must be taken as true and the reviewing court is not at liberty to determine credibility or the weight which should be given to the evidence, these being functions reserved to the trier of fact. The prevailing party is entitled to all reasonable inferences which may be drawn from the evidence.

Upon completion of such an evidentiary review, the appellate court must determine whether the verdict rendered is palpably or flagrantly against the evidence so as to indicate that it was reached as the result of passion or prejudice.

Hornung, supra.

Cf. Lewis v. Bledsoe Surface Mining Co., Ky., 798 S.W.2d 459 (1990).

Here, the Court of Appeals did not determine that the verdict was palpably or flagrantly against the evidence so as to indicate that it was reached as a result of passion or prejudice as required by Hornung.

II. Directed Verdict

The trial judge correctly refused to grant a directed verdict, and the Court of Appeals was in error when it held that Klapheke was entitled to a directed verdict as to compensatory damages.

On a motion for directed verdict, the trial judge must draw all fair and reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor of the party opposing the motion. When engaging in appellate review of a ruling on a motion for directed verdict, the reviewing court must ascribe to the evidence all reasonable inferences and deductions which support the claim of the prevailing party. Meyers v. Chapman Printing Co., Inc ., Ky., 840 S.W.2d 814 (1992). Once the issue is squarely presented to the trial judge, who heard and considered the evidence, a reviewing court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the trial judge unless the trial judge is clearly erroneous. Davis v. Graviss, Ky., 672 S.W.2d 928 (1984).

In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence, the appellate court must respect the opinion of the trial judge who heard the evidence. A reviewing court is rarely in as good a position as the trial judge who presided over the initial trial to decide whether a jury can properly consider the evidence presented. Generally, a trial judge cannot enter a directed verdict unless there is a complete absence of proof on a material issue or if no disputed issues of fact exist upon which reasonable minds could differ. Where there is conflicting evidence, it is the responsibility of the jury to determine and resolve such conflicts, as well as matters affecting the credibility of witnesses. Cf. Taylor v....