Coalson v. Canchola

• Decision Date: 27 February 2014
• Docket Number: Record No. 130837.
• Citation: 754 S.E.2d 525,287 Va. 242
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: Victoria COALSON v. Victor CANCHOLA.

287 Va. 242

754 S.E.2d 525

Victoria COALSON

v.Victor CANCHOLA.

Record No. 130837.

Supreme Court of Virginia.

Feb. 27, 2014.

Gobind S. Sethi; L. Steven Emmert (Robert T. Hall; Samantha K. Sledd; Hall & Sethi, on briefs), for appellant.

Steven W. Bancroft (Martin Schubert; Bancroft, McGavin, Horvath & Judkins, on brief), for appellee.

Amicus Curiae: Virginia Trial Lawyers Association (Cory R. Ford; E. Kyle McNew; Williams Law; MichieHamlett, on brief), in support of appellant.

Present: All the Justices.

Opinion by Justice S. BERNARD GOODWYN.

In this appeal, we consider whether the circuit court erred in remitting a jury's award of punitive damages.

Background

On March 1, 2011, Victoria Coalson (Coalson) and Michael Stemke (Stemke) each filed lawsuits in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County against Victor Canchola (Canchola) seeking compensatory and punitive damages for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident. The circuit court consolidated Coalson's and Stemke's actions.

At the conclusion of the trial, the jury awarded Coalson $5,600 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages against Canchola. Stemke received $14,000 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages. The circuit court entered a final order on January 11, 2013, but the court suspended the order for fourteen days to give the parties an opportunity to file post-trial motions and submit an amended final order if they wished. Canchola filed a post-trial motion for remittitur of both punitive damages awards, arguing that the awards were excessive under Virginia law and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The circuit court found that Canchola's conduct was egregious. Nevertheless, it noted “a significant disparity” between the plaintiffs' compensatory damages awards, although both punitive damages awards were the same. Based on this disparity, it concluded that Coalson's award was arbitrarily made. The circuit court remitted Coalson's punitive damages to $50,000. While it recognized that “[t]here is no bright line or formula to be applied[,]” the court reduced the award to “less than a ten percent ratio.”

The circuit court entered an order granting Canchola's motion for remittitur regarding Coalson's punitive damages award on February 8, 2013. On February 28, 2013, the court entered an amended final order reflecting its remittitur ruling, noting Coalson's acceptance under protest, summarizing the proceedings, denying Coalson's motion to reconsider and awarding post-judgment interest. Coalson filed a notice of appeal with the circuit court on March 21, 2013.¹

Facts

At approximately 6:30 p.m. on February 15, 2009, Canchola was driving and talking on his cellular telephone when he attempted to turn left at an intersection on Waxpool Road in Loudoun County. He turned in front of a vehicle driven by Coalson, who had the right of way and was unable to stop before colliding with the passenger door of Canchola's vehicle. Coalson and her passenger, Stemke, suffered minor injuries.

Canchola, who was intoxicated at the time of the accident, had an extensive record of driving while intoxicated. Between 1991 and 1997, Canchola was convicted six times of driving while intoxicated and once of driving with a suspended license. In 1996, his driver's license was revoked. In 2004, he was convicted yet again of driving while intoxicated in California.

The night before the accident, Canchola stayed at a hotel in Ashburn, Virginia, with his girlfriend Lori Rudegeair (Rudegeair), who was visiting from Pennsylvania. At brunch in Alexandria on the day of the accident, Canchola drank several glasses of champagne. Afterward, Canchola and Rudegeair walked to a nearby pub, and Canchola drank two rounds of his favorite drink combination, a vodka martini and light beer. They left the pub sometime after 3:30 p.m. when a police officer called Canchola to inform him that a vehicle Canchola had reported missing was located in Leesburg, Virginia. Because Canchola slurred his speech while speaking to the police officer, the officer advised Canchola not to drive when he came to pick up the vehicle.

Despite the warning, Canchola drove Rudegeair's car to Leesburg. He stopped approximately a block from where he was supposed to meet the officer and had Rudegeair drive the rest of the way. After Canchola finished speaking to the officer and claiming the vehicle, which was found in good condition, and after having been warned by the officer not to drive, Canchola left the scene as Rudegeair's passenger. They drove a short distance, waited for a few minutes and returned to Canchola's vehicle after the police officer left. Canchola then drove his vehicle to another bar. Rudegeair followed in her car. There, Canchola drank at least two rounds of the vodka and light beer combination and three additional shots of liquor within a short period of time.

Canchola and Rudegeair left the bar to return to the hotel in separate vehicles. As Canchola approached the intersection where he was to turn left into the hotel entrance, he began a conversation on his cellular telephone. He was engaged in that conversation when he turned left in front of the vehicle driven by Coalson. According to uncontradicted testimony of an expert toxicologist, Canchola's blood alcohol content was almost twice the legal limit at the time of the accident.

After Coalson collided with Canchola, Canchola removed his vehicle from the scene of the accident, parked it and left in Rudegeair's vehicle. He was subsequently arrested upon returning to the hotel. Canchola urged Rudegeair not to tell anyone that he had been driving his vehicle when the accidentoccurred. Rudegeair initially lied to police but later told the truth under oath.

Analysis

Coalson argues that the circuit court erred in remitting her punitive damages award because the circuit court's decision was based upon comparing her punitive damages award to Stemke's punitive damages award and upon the proportionality of her punitive damages award in relation to her compensatory damages award. Coalson asserts that proportionality is not the only consideration in determining the excessiveness of punitive damages under Virginia law and that a higher ratio between compensatory and punitive damages was proper in this case due to “the egregiousness of [Canchola's] conduct and the potential harm that could have resulted from his actions.” Coalson emphasizes that neither this Court nor the United States Supreme Court has created a “bright-line test.” Although she does not base her appeal on constitutional grounds, Coalson maintains that Virginia's remittitur analysis for punitive damages is “framed in, and derived from” federal constitutional law. Consequently, she urges the Court to consider “potential harm” as well as actual harm in reinstating the jury's punitive damages award.

Canchola contends that the circuit court properly considered and applied all of the remittitur factors and constitutional guidelines before granting his motion. He disputes Coalson's assertion that the Court should consider “hypothetical damages” she could have sustained. He argues that considering what could have happened is not supported by this Court's jurisprudence and would require a jury to engage in improper speculation. Canchola claims that in evaluating the reprehensibility of his actions, the proper focus should be on his conduct at the time of the accident, not on “every unsavory act [he] committed over time.” According to Canchola, Coalson places too much emphasis on punishment and reprehensibility and ignores proportionality.

“The purpose of punitive damages is to provide ‘protection of the public, ... punishment to [the] defendant, and ... a warning and example to deter him and others from committing like offenses.’ ” Huffman v. Love, 245 Va. 311, 315, 427 S.E.2d 357, 361 (1993) (quoting Baker v. Marcus, 201 Va. 905, 909, 114 S.E.2d 617, 620 (1960)). This Court has observed that punitive damages are meant to warn, not to compensate the plaintiff. Doe v. Isaacs, 265 Va. 531, 539, 579 S.E.2d 174, 179 (2003). A punitive damages award is generally left to the jury's discretion because there is no set standard for determining the amount of punitive damages. Worrie v. Boze, 198 Va. 533, 544, 95 S.E.2d 192, 201 (1956).

To justify remittitur, a jury's award must be so excessive that it shocks the conscience of the trial court, indicating that the jury's decision was motivated by “passion, corruption or prejudice.” Condominium Servs., Inc. v. First Owners' Ass'n of Forty Six Hundred Condo., Inc., 281 Va. 561, 580, 709 S.E.2d 163, 175 (2011) (quoting Smithey v. Sinclair Refining Co., 203 Va. 142, 146, 122 S.E.2d 872, 875–76 (1961)). When a trial court considers whether to remit a jury's punitive damages award, its review of the punitive damages award should consider the “reasonableness between the damages sustained and the amount of the award and the measurement of punishment required, whether the award will amount to a double recovery, the proportionality between the compensatory and punitive damages, and the ability of the defendant to pay.” Poulston v. Rock, 251 Va. 254, 263, 467 S.E.2d 479, 484 (1996) (citations omitted).

In evaluating whether punitive damages were properly remitted, this Court performs a de novo review, examines the record independently and gives “substantial weight” to the trial court's action. Baldwin v. McConnell, 273 Va. 650, 657, 643 S.E.2d 703, 706 (2007) (quoting Poulston, 251 Va. at 263, 467 S.E.2d at 484).

The circuit court reduced the amount of Coalson's punitive damages award because the jury awarded the same amount in punitive damages to Coalson as it did to Stemke despite their different compensatory damages awards. Also, the circuit court ruled that the 1:17.86 ratio between Coalson's compensatoryand punitive damages was too high.

We have not previously addressed whether it is proper to compare punitive...