Bishop v. Grdina

• Decision Date: 13 November 1985
• Docket Number: No. 84-1861,84-1861
• Citation: 485 N.E.2d 704,20 OBR 213,20 Ohio St.3d 26
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court
• Parties: , 20 O.B.R. 213 BISHOP et al., Appellants, v. GRDINA et al., Appellees.

Page 26

20 Ohio St.3d 26

485 N.E.2d 704, 20 O.B.R. 213

BISHOP et al., Appellants, v.GRDINA et al., Appellees.

No. 84-1861.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Nov. 13, 1985.

Joseph W. Diemert, Jr. & Assoc. Co., L.P.A., Joseph W. Diemert, Jr. and Thomas M. Hanculak, Cleveland, for appellants.

Bernard, Haffey & Bosco Co., L.P.A., Edward G. Bohnert and J. Ross Haffey, Jr., Lyndhurst, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The issues presented in this appeal are: (1) whether the $500,000 punitive damage award as to the 1977 sales contract was properly stricken; and (2) whether the total punitive damages awarded was properly decreased pursuant to Civ.R. 54(C).We affirm on both issues.

I

This court stated in paragraph one of the syllabus in Richard v. Hunter(1949), 151 Ohio St. 185, 85 N.E.2d 109[39 O.O. 24], that "[e]xemplary or punitive damages may not be awarded in the absence of proof of actual damages."This position was recently upheld in Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland(1984), 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 461 N.E.2d 1273, where the court states at 82, 461 N.E.2d 1273: " * * * [W]e believe that punitive damages are highly irregular absent proof of any actual damages."

Appellants seize upon this language from Seasons Coal Co. and claim that theirs is an example of such a "highly irregular" situation.Appellants argue that the two June 29, 1977 contracts were inseparable, in that they dealt with the same subject matter and involved essentially the same parties.Thus, it is claimed, the compensatory damages awarded as to the maintenance contract provide support for the punitive damages awarded on the sales contract.

We decline, however, to adopt appellants' reasoning.The purpose of the Richard rule is to keep the punitive damages awarded a mere incident of the cause of action, rather than let it become a cause of action in and of itself.Punitive damages are awarded as punishment for causing compensable harm and as a deterrent against similar action in the future.No civil cause of action in this state may be maintained simply for punitive damages.Schumacher v. Siefert(1930), 35 Ohio App. 405, 172 N.E. 420.

In this case, a contract was entered into on June 29, 1977 by Dr. Suresky, as purchaser, and one of the appellee business entities, as seller.The contract was allegedly fraudulent, and the purchaser sued.The jury awarded no compensatory damages, but did award $500,000 in punitive damages on this contract.Such an award is legally unsupportable, as the jury found no actual damages resulting from the claimed fraud.This court further finds no proof of actual damages flowing from any actions of this appellee pertaining to this contract.The presence of a second contract signed on the same day which involved the same parties and the same cattle is not relevant to the contract at issue.Thus we affirm the reversal of the award of $500,000 in punitive damages.

II

Civ.R. 54(C) reads in pertinent part: " * * * [A]demand for judgment which seeks a judgment for money shall limit the claimant to the sum claimed in the demand unless he amends his demand not later than seven days before the commencement of the trial."The Civil Rules are, of course, the law of this state with regard to practice and procedure in our state courts.Section 5(B), Article IV, Ohio Constitution.

Civ.R. 54(C) is clear on its face.No damages awarded may exceed the prayer that is in effect on the sixth day prior to trial.In this case, the punitive damages awarded greatly exceeded appellants' prayer, and the court of appeals properly reduced the award to conform to the requested amount.

Appellants claim that such a rule leads to an incongruous situation in that if no punitive damages are requested they may be awarded, but that if a request is made the award may not exceed the request.Thus, it is claimed, the better practice for a plaintiff would be to either ask for nothing or ask for an excessive amount.

Civ.R. 54(C) does not draw...