Saucedo ex rel. Sinaloa v. Salvation Army
Decision Date | 24 May 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 1 CA-CV 00-0272.,1 CA-CV 00-0272. |
Citation | 200 Ariz. 179,24 P.3d 1274 |
Parties | Cresencio S. SAUCEDO, as personal representative of the Estate of Exiquio S. SINALOA, and on behalf of the statutory beneficiaries, including Armando S. Saucedo, Julia Saucedo, Leopoldo Saucedo, and Alberto Silva, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. The SALVATION ARMY, an Arizona corporation; Edward Stettinius Stuart and Jane Doe Stuart, husband and wife, Defendants-Appellants. |
Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A. by Brian Kaven and Daryl Manhart, Phoenix, Attorneys for Defendants-Appellants.
Timbanard Kamper Borrelli, L.L.P. by Timothy J. Kamper and Roger W. Miller, Esq., Phoenix, Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
¶ 1 The Salvation Army and Edward Stuart appeal from the trial court's denial of their motion for judgment as a matter of law on the issue of punitive damages, its denial of their motion for a new trial on all issues, its grant of a partial new trial only as to the amount of punitive damages, and its entry of judgment on a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand with directions.
¶ 2 Exiquio Sinaloa was struck and killed at 9:25 p.m. on March 26, 1996, while jay-walking across Broadway Road near 16th Street in Phoenix. Mr. Sinaloa was struck by a Salvation Army van, driven by its employee, Edward Stuart, who at the time was driving on a suspended license. At the time of his death, Mr. Sinaloa was wearing a dark jacket and gray pants, and had a blood alcohol content of 0.22. Mr. Stuart claims that he thought he had merely struck a black garbage bag containing aluminum cans, considering he was passing in front of a recycling plant. Mr. Stuart did not stop at the scene of the accident.
¶ 3 Mr. Stuart was being closely followed by two undercover Phoenix police officers when the accident occurred. The officers realized that Mr. Stuart had struck a person and, while one of the officers tended to Mr. Sinaloa, the other pursued Mr. Stuart to the Salvation Army facility approximately two blocks from the scene of the accident. Mr. Sinaloa either died on impact or within an extremely short time thereafter.1
The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding $10,817.72 in compensatory damages and $1.00 in punitive damages. The jury found Mr. Sinaloa and the defendants each fifty percent at fault.
¶ 5 The plaintiffs filed a motion requesting a new trial as to the amount of punitive damages, claiming that the alleged misconduct of defense counsel invoked the passions and prejudices of the jury, rendering the punitive damages award insufficient. The trial court granted the plaintiffs' motion.
¶ 6 The defendants then moved for a new trial on all issues or, in the alternative, renewed their motion for judgment as a matter of law, arguing, among other things, that the issue of punitive damages should not have been submitted to the jury. Prior to the court's ruling on the defendants' motions, the defendants requested that the court reconsider its prior ruling granting a new trial only on the issue of punitive damages. The court then entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on the compensatory award including costs, denied the defendants' motion for reconsideration, and reaffirmed its prior order setting aside the jury verdict as to punitive damages only and ordered a new trial for a determination of the amount of punitive damages. The court subsequently denied the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law on the punitive damages issue and their motion for new trial on all issues. The defendants filed a timely notice of appeal, see Ariz. R. Civ.App. P. 9(b)(4), and we have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) sections 12-2101(B) and (F)(1) (1994).
¶ 7 The defendants raise the following issues on appeal:
1. Whether the trial court erred by denying the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law on the plaintiffs' punitive damages claim;
2. Whether the trial court erred by granting the plaintiffs a new trial solely to determine and award punitive damages; and
3. In the alternative, if the trial court did not err by ordering a new trial, whether the trial court erred by limiting the issues to be re-tried solely to the amount of punitive damages, rather than granting a new trial as to all issues.
¶ 8 Because we conclude that the trial court erred by allowing the jury to consider the plaintiffs' punitive damages claim, we need not reach the additional issues raised by the defendants on appeal.
¶ 9 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, we review the trial court's denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law de novo. Monaco, 196 Ariz. at 302, ¶ 6, 995 P.2d at 738. A party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law "only when the facts presented in support of a claim have so little probative value that reasonable people could not find for the claimant." Id.
¶ 10 In Arizona, to recover punitive damages, a plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that a "defendant's wrongful conduct was guided by evil motives or wilful or wanton disregard of the interests of others." Piper v. Bear Med. Sys., Inc., 180 Ariz. 170, 180, 883 P.2d 407, 417 (App. 1993); see also Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn, 184 Ariz. 120, 132, 907 P.2d 506, 518 (App.1995). Punitive damages serve to punish wrongdoers and deter others from engaging in similar conduct. Jacobson v. Superior Court, 154 Ariz. 430, 431, 743 P.2d 410, 411 (App.1987).
¶ 11 To recover punitive damages, a plaintiff must prove something more than the underlying tort. Piper, 180 Ariz. at 180, 883 P.2d at 417. That is, "a plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant engaged in aggravated and outrageous conduct with an `evil mind.'" Hyatt Regency, 184 Ariz. at 132, 907 P.2d at 518 ( ). Although the element of a tortfeasor's intent may be inferred, a plaintiff must always prove "outwardly aggravated, outrageous, malicious, or fraudulent conduct." Linthicum, 150 Ariz. at 331, 723 P.2d at 680.
¶ 12 Here, the plaintiffs argue that Mr. Stuart "consciously pursued a course of conduct knowing that it created a substantial risk of significant harm to others," Gurule v. Ill. Mut. Life & Cas. Co., 152 Ariz. 600, 602, 734 P.2d 85, 87 (1987) (quoting Rawlings, 151 Ariz. at 162, 726 P.2d at 578), namely, that Mr. Stuart allegedly left the scene of a fatal accident, and that the evil mind element may properly be inferred. In support of their position, the plaintiffs argued during the motion for judgment as a matter of law that the evidence established the requisite intent:
(Emphasis added.) Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, and assuming that the plaintiffs' arguments have merit, we conclude that the evidence does not establish a prima facie entitlement to punitive damages.
¶ 13 Assuming Mr. Stuart did know that he hit Mr. Sinaloa rather than a bag of cans in the street, and further assuming that he intentionally fled the scene without rendering assistance, we find that this alleged aggravated course of conduct was not shown to have caused harm to Mr. Sinaloa. The requisite intent and outrageous and egregious conduct must occur in tandem with the conduct giving rise to the injury in order to recover...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Acuna v. Kroack
...of their argument, appellants rely on Forquer v. Pinal County, 22 Ariz.App. 266, 526 P.2d 1064 (1974), and Saucedo v. Salvation Army, 200 Ariz. 179, 24 P.3d 1274 (App.2001). We find neither case controlling or particularly helpful on the evidentiary issue posed here. ¶ 16 In Forquer, a wron......
-
White v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe R.
... ... mind."); Saucedo ex rel. Sinaloa v. Salvation Army, ... ...
-
Desert Palm Surgical Grp., P. L.C. v. Petta
...evidence of an “evil mind” that caused Plaintiffs injury, the punitive damage award should be vacated.See Saucedo ex rel. Sinaloa v. Salvation Army, 200 Ariz. 179, 184, ¶ 19, 24 P.3d 1274, 1279 (App.2001) (recognizing “the conduct giving rise to punitive damages must be a proximate cause of......
-
Acuna v. Kroack, 2 CA-CV 2005-0049.
...of their argument, appellants rely on Forquer v. Pinal County, 22 Ariz.App. 266, 526 P.2d 1064 (1974), and Saucedo v. Salvation Army, 200 Ariz. 179, 24 P.3d 1274 (App.2001). We find neither case controlling or particularly helpful on the evidentiary issue posed here. ¶ 15 In Forquer, a wron......
-
23.25 Punitive Damages in a Products Liability Case
...Co., 171 Ariz. 550, 556, 832 P.2d 203, 209 (1992).[623] Id. at 557, 832 P.2d at 209.[624] Saucedo ex rel Sinaloa v. Salvation Army, 200 Ariz. 179, 182-83, ¶¶ 13-14, 24 P.3d 1274, 1277-78 (App. 2001).[625] Hudgins, 221 Ariz. at 489, 212 P.3d at 828; Campbell, 538 U.S. at 416.[626] Id. at 490......
-
23.25 Punitive Damages in a Products Liability Case
...Co., 171 Ariz. 550, 556, 832 P.2d 203, 209 (1992).[636] Id. at 557, 832 P.2d at 209.[637] Saucedo ex rel Sinaloa v. Salvation Army, 200 Ariz. 179, 182-83, ¶¶ 13-14, 24 P.3d 1274, 1277-78 (App. 2001).[638] Hudgins, 221 Ariz. at 489, 212 P.3d at 828; Campbell, 538 U.S. at 416.[639] Id. at 490......
-
25.4.3 Causation Requirement.
...from the underlying tort before a claim for punitive damages may be considered.49 --------Notes:[45] Saucedo v. The Salvation Army, 200 Ariz. 179, 24 P.3d 1274 (App. 2001).[46] Id. at 182, ¶ 13, 24 P.3d at 1278.[47] Id. at 183, ¶ 14, 24 P.3d at 1278.[48] Id. at 183, ¶ 15, 24 P.3d at 1278, c......
-
25.4.3 Causation Requirement.
...from the underlying tort before a claim for punitive damages may be considered.48 --------Notes:[44] Saucedo v. The Salvation Army, 200 Ariz. 179, 24 P.3d 1274 (App. 2001).[45] Id. at 182, ¶ 13, 24 P.3d at 1278.[46] Id. at 183, ¶ 14, 24 P.3d at 1278.[47] Id. at 183, ¶ 15, 24 P.3d at 1278, c......