Grover v. Minette-Mills, Inc.

• Citation: 638 A.2d 712
• Decision Date: 09 March 1994
• Docket Number: INC,MINETTE-MILL
• Parties: Robert E. GROVER v., et al. *
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)

Page 712

638 A.2d 712

Robert E. GROVER v. MINETTE-MILLS, INC., et al. ^*

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Argued Sept. 23, 1993.

Decided March 9, 1994.

Peter B. Bickerman (orally), Lipman & Katz, Augusta, for plaintiff.

Stephen Beale (orally), Skelton, Taintor & Abbott, Auburn, Peter Murray (orally), Richard O'Meara, Murray, Plumb & Murray, Portland, Theodore Kurtz, Kurtz & Myers, South Paris, for defendants.

Before WATHEN, C.J., and ROBERTS, GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD, COLLINS, RUDMAN and DANA, JJ.

GLASSMAN, Justice.

The defendants, Minette-Mills, Inc., John W. Pollack and Gary P. Goldfarb, appeal from a judgment entered in the Superior Court (Androscoggin County, Delahanty C.J.) on a jury verdict awarding compensatory and punitive damages to the plaintiff, Robert E. Grover, on his complaint alleging their tortious interference with the contract between Grover and Bates Fabrics, Inc. They contend that the trial court erred in (1) seating an allegedly biased juror, (2) failing to correct an allegedly improper statement in Grover's closing argument, (3) refusing to grant a requested jury instruction, and (4) denying their motion at the close of all the evidence, renewed after the jury verdict, for a judgment as a matter of law. They also contend there was insufficient evidence of malice to support the jury's award of punitive damages and, in the alternative, that the award was excessive. We affirm the judgment.

The record reveals the jury heard the following evidence: From 1964 through 1984, Grover occupied various sales positions with Bates, a corporation engaged in the textile business. In 1981 Grover was promoted to Vice-President of Sales and Marketing for Bates's sales divisions. In this capacity, he supervised Pollack, the divisional manager of Bates's Chain and Specialty Sales Division, and Goldfarb, a sales representative. In 1982 Grover fired Pollack from his position with Bates.

The June 4, 1984 contract between Grover and Bates provided that Grover be an independent sales representative of Bates and be paid a set commission rate on all sales in his territory, which included twelve midwestern states and Bates's largest account, the Prestex account. As amended, the contract was to continue through December 31, 1988 but could be terminated for cause on six months written notice. The contract continued in effect after Eric Tang and Thomas Tang acquired a majority of the Bates stock, which they subsequently transferred to Minette-Mills, Inc. ¹ Thereafter, the Tangs served as officers of both Minette and Bates.

At the relevant time, Pollack and Goldfarb were employed by Minette. Pollack harbored ill will toward Grover as a result of being fired by him from his position with Bates, and both Pollack and Goldfarb wanted to "get rid of" Grover. Although Pollack had no knowledge as to the truth of the assertion, he reported to the Tangs that Grover was not servicing properly the accounts of Bates's customers for which he was responsible. Both Pollack and Goldfarb falsely reported to the Tangs that Grover had uttered ethnic slurs about the Tangs. In February 1988 Grover received a telephone notification from Goldfarb that Grover would no longer have the Prestex account. This was confirmed by letter dated February 8, 1988. The Prestex account was subsequently handled by Goldfarb.

By letter dated March 28, 1988, Grover objected to this change and requested a meeting with the Tangs to discuss the matter. On April 14, 1988, at Minette headquarters in North Carolina, Grover met with Eric Tang and Goldfarb. There was conflicting evidence as to whether Pollack attended this meeting. At the meeting, Grover was told by Eric Tang that Prestex was no longer his account and that he would be receiving six months written notice of termination. By letter dated April 14, 1988 Grover received formal notice that his contract with Bates was being terminated. No "just cause" was stated.

In December 1988 Grover commenced this action, alleging, inter alia, that Minette, Pollack, and Goldfarb had tortiously interfered with the Grover-Bates contract, and seeking compensatory and punitive damages from them. After a jury trial, ² a judgment was entered consistent with the jury's verdict that: Minette, Pollack, and Goldfarb had tortiously interfered with the contract and awarded to Grover $52,863 in compensatory damages and $500,000 in punitive damages from Minette, $1.00 in compensatory damages and $30,000 in punitive damages from Pollack, and $1.00 in compensatory damages and $10,000 in punitive damages from Goldfarb. It is from this judgment that Minette, Pollack, and Goldfarb appeal.

I. Jury Selection

The defendants first contend that the trial court erred in seating and naming as the jury foreman Ronald Bonenfant, an allegedly biased juror. They argue that Bonenfant's failure to answer a voir dire question is ground for reversal because a response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause or an opportunity to excuse him by the exercise of a peremptory challenge.

In McDonough Power Equipment v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 104 S.Ct. 845, 78 L.Ed.2d 663 (1984) the United States Supreme Court stated that in order to obtain a new trial because of a juror's mistaken response to a question on voir dire, "a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause." Id. at 556, 104 S.Ct. at 850. Here the record reflects that prior to the trial the defendants knew that in response to the jury questionnaire, Bonenfant had stated his occupation as "purchasing agent." The trial court concluded its voir dire by asking the panel members whether there was any reason that any of them believed they could not be fair and impartial in deciding the case. There was no response from the panel members. After hearing challenges for cause and peremptory challenges, the trial court appointed Bonenfant to serve as the jury foreman. Before Bonenfant was made aware of this fact, however, he voluntarily addressed the court, stating, "You didn't ask. I was a professional commission salesman for 20 years and I don't know if that would help or hurt, but I thought somebody might want to know." On inquiry, Bonenfant assured the court he would have no difficulty basing a verdict on the evidence without drawing on his own experience. ³ The court denied the defendants' challenge for cause of Bonenfant.

The defendants' argument that a response by Bonenfant would have created a valid basis for a challenge for cause ignores the fact that after Bonenfant disclosed his sales experience, the trial court heard their challenge for cause and denied it. The court's decision that Bonenfant would remain impartial is supported by the record. See Hodgdon v. Jones, 538 A.2d 281, 282 (Me.1988) ("The determination of the [trial court] that the juror remained impartial will stand unless it is clear to this court that no competent evidence supports that decision."). The defendants' argument that Bonenfant's failure to respond in a timely manner to the court's open-ended voir dire question deprived them of an opportunity to excuse him by exercising a peremptory challenge must similarly fail. In Eckenrode v. Heritage Management Corp., 480 A.2d 759 (Me.1984), we addressed the problem of a juror's failure to disclose information requested on voir dire and held that a new trial should be ordered only if the nondisclosure prevented the discovery of a juror's bias "as probably, not speculatively, existent." Id. at 764-65. Here the defendants failed to establish that the claimed bias of Bonenfant was probable rather than speculative.

The defendants' contention, in reliance on State v. Moody, 486 A.2d 122 (Me.1984), that the trial court committed reversible error in failing to conduct its further questioning of Bonenfant out of the presence of other panel members to avoid "the obvious embarrassment and discomfort" to Bonenfant is misplaced. In Moody we held that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to grant the defendant's request that inquiry about potential jurors' exposure to child abuse be conducted in a private setting. Id. at 126. Here the defendants made no such request. Further, we refuse to equate the degree of embarrassment and discomfort of a juror likely to arise from an inquiry about the juror's prior exposure to child abuse with that attending an inquiry of a juror concerning the juror's prior exposure to commissioned sales work.

II. Closing Argument

The defendants next contend that the trial court erred by failing to correct an alleged improper statement in Grover's closing argument. During his closing argument, Grover argued that Goldfarb and Pollack falsely accused Grover of making derogatory ethnic statements about the Tangs, stating that Pollack told the Tangs that Grover had called them "chinks, coolies, and gooks." In response to the defendants' objection that Grover's assertion that Pollack used the expression "chinks, coolies and gooks" was unsupported by the evidence, the trial court stated it would instruct the jury that its recollection of disputed testimony would govern its deliberations and that it could make inquiry concerning such testimony during its deliberations. The defendants did not move for a mistrial or object to the court's proposed action. When, as here, the issue of the propriety of a party's closing argument is not properly preserved, we review the issue only for obvious error affecting substantial rights. Miller v. Szelenyi, 546 A.2d 1013, 1018 (Me.1988); M.R.Civ.P. 61.

Our review of the record reveals that Goldfarb testified that Grover referred to the Tangs as "coolies, gooks, and other derogatory names." He admitted mentioning this to Pollack. Although at trial Goldfarb and Pollack denied reporting this to the Tangs, the portion of Goldfarb's deposition that...