Jackson v. Fontaine's Clinics, Inc.
| Decision Date | 04 May 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 5128,5128 |
| Citation | 481 S.W.2d 934 |
| Parties | Dr. Ruth JACKSON et al., Appellants, v. FONTAINE'S CLINICS, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Burford, Ryburn & Ford, Logan Ford, John F. Harrison, David Ford Hunt, Dallas, for appellants.
George E. Flannigan, Jerry W. Biesel, Dallas, for appellee.
This is an appeal by Defendant Jackson from judgment against her in favor of Plaintiff Fontaine's for $25,000 actual and $65,000 exemplary damages, in an unfair trade practices suit.
Plaintiff Fontaine's Clinics, Inc. which operates three clinics for the removal of hair from the human body by electrolysis, sued Defendants Dr. Ruth Jackson, Catherine Ward, Gwynn Gambrell, Margaret Hanson, and A.S.E. Dermatetics Clinics, Inc., to enjoin alleged unfair trade practices of defendants and to recover damages caused thereby. Plaintiff alleged defendants entered into a conspiracy to commit, and did commit acts which damaged plaintiff's business and reputation by proselyting plaintiff's employees and its business secrets; and by interfering with its contractual relations with its employees and patients, through libelous statements and inducements, causing damages for which all defendants are jointly and severally liable. Plaintiff sought $181,024 actual damages and $1,000,000 punitive damages.
Trial was to a jury which found:
1) Ruth Jackson, Catherine Ward, Gwynn Gambrell and Margaret Hanson entered into a conspiracy to embark upon a plan, scheme or design for the commission of acts calculated to damage Fontaine's Clinics in its business operations.
2) Such conspiracy was accompanied by overt acts designed to accomplish such purpose.
3) Such overt acts proximately caused Fontaine's Clinics a loss of monetary reward from its business activities.
4) Fontaine's active clientele as evidenced by cards containing name, address and telephone number was a trade secret.
5) Catherine Ward used a list of names compiled from such cards to solicit business for A.S.E.
6) Which proximately caused Fontaine's a loss of monetary reward from its business activities.
7) In the amount of $25,000.
8) The overt acts inquired about in issues 1 and 5 were motivated by malice on the part of Dr. Ruth Jackson.
9) For which $65,000 exemplary damages should be awarded against Dr. Ruth Jackson.
10) Margaret Hanson was not motivated by malice.
12) Catherine Ward was motivated by malice.
13) For which $1000 exemplary damages should be awarded against Catherine Ward.
14) Gwynn Cambrell was motivated by malice.
15) For which $250 exemplary damages should be awarded against Gwynn Gambrell.
The trial court overruled Defendants' Motions for directed verdict and judgment non obstante veredicto, and granted Plaintiff's Motion for judgment and rendered judgment plaintiff recover: $90,000 ($25,000 actual and $65,000 exemplary damages) from Defendant Dr. Ruth Jackson, $1000 from Defendant Ward, and $250. from Defendant Gambrell. Defendants filed Motion and Amended Motion for new trial. The trial court directed plaintiff to file remittitur of $32,500 of the exemplary damages awarded against Dr. Ruth Jackson, which remittitur was filed by plaintiff, reserving the right to complain of same on appeal. The trial court then overruled Defendants' Motion for new trial, but did not reform the judgment in conformity to such remittitur.
Defendants appeal on 52 points asserting:
1) There is no evidence that Fontaine's sustained any damage caused by defendants' alleged overt acts; (and no evidence and insufficient evidence to sustain the jury's answer to issue 3, 6, 7.)
2) There is no evidence and insufficient evidence to sustain the jury's answer to issues 8 and 9.
3) The award of $25,000 actual and $65,000 exemplary damages against Dr. Ruth Jackson is excessive.
4) Exemplary damages awarded against Defendants Ward and Gambrell are error as there is no judgment for actual damages against them.
5) The trial court erred in admitting into evidence plaintiff's exhibits 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, and 51.
6) The trial court erred in rendering $25,000 actual damages against Dr. Ruth Jackson alone, while rendering no judgment against the other coconspirators for actual damages, as this deprives Dr. Jackson of the right of indemnity or contribution of funds that may be paid by Dr. Jackson in discharge of liability of the other 3 defendants.
7) The trial court erred in failing to reduce the exemplary damages against Dr. Ruth Jackson from $65,000 to $32,500 pursuant to the court's suggestion of remittitur, which plaintiff complied with.
Plaintiff by cross point asserts the trial court erred in requiring a remittitur of $32,500.
Plaintiff Fontaine's operated three clinics: two in Dallas and one in Ft. Worth for the removal of unwanted hair from the human body by means of electrolysis. In June 1969, Catherine Ward went to work at Fontaine's as a manager. She had control and management of the Preston Center Clinic in Dallas, was in charge of all records, technicians, patients, and the selling of patients. As manager she had direct contract with every client or prospective client who came to the clinic. Mrs. Ward became acquainted with a patient, Dr. Ruth Jackson, an orthopedic surgeon, and later Dr. Jackson treated Mrs. Ward for a neck injury. Dr. Jackson learned from Mrs. Ward that Mrs. Ward was disappointed in the size of her commission check, and asked her how much it would cost to put in a clinic, and to check on a possible location. Dr. Jackson arranged several meetings at her home with Mrs. Ward, a Mr. Charette and Margaret Hanson, at which time plans were made in regard to the new venture. Dr. Jackson secured a charter for a corporation called A.S .E. Dermatetics, and was owner of 100% Of the stock. She opened A.S .E. at 3620 Fairmount Street as a clinic to remove unwanted human hair and induced Mrs. Ward to leave Fontaine's and join A.S.E. She requested Mrs. Ward to find...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson v. Fontaine's Clinics, Inc.
...court's judgment against Jackson after reforming it to the extent of reducing the exemplary damages recovered against her by $32,500. 481 S.W.2d 934. The special issue pertaining to actual damages was submitted as 'What sum of money, if any, if paid now in cash, do you find from a preponder......