Shippen v. Parrott
| Decision Date | 28 August 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 19136,19136 |
| Citation | 1996 SD 105,553 N.W.2d 503 |
| Parties | Daniel SHIPPEN, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Sherman V. PARROTT, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Robert W. Van Norman, Charles J. Mickel, Rapid City, for plaintiff and appellee.
Charles Poches, Jr., Poches and Lee, Fort Pierre, for defendant and appellant.
¶1 Defendant, Sherman Parrott (Parrott), appeals from the trial court's apportionment of damages between actionable and non-actionable events. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.
¶2 Plaintiff, Daniel Shippen (Shippen), is an adult survivor of childhood sexual abuse inflicted by Parrott. The trial court found that Shippen suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of that abuse. The childhood sexual abuse commenced in 1975, when Shippen was eleven. It continued until 1984 when Shippen was twenty. Parrott also sexually assaulted Shippen on two occasions in 1987 when Shippen was twenty-three. In Shippen v. Parrott, 506 N.W.2d 82 (S.D.1993) (Shippen I ), Parrott's course of conduct was summarized as follows:
During infancy, Shippen's parents divorced. By age five, his mother had remarried a banker, who died approximately one year later.
Enter Parrott, a man who had worked at the bank with Shippen's stepfather. Parrott and Shippen's mother developed a relationship which lasted for a considerable length of time and eventually became sexual. Parrott's interest quickly spread to Shippen and his siblings. Mother further encouraged Shippen and his twin brother, David, to associate with Parrott, believing him to provide a healthy male adult role model for the boys.
Parrott resided in the basement of the house he shared with his mother, an elderly woman who was bedridden and hard of hearing. His basement living quarters included a pool table, pizza oven, popcorn popper, clown collection and waterbed. In 1975, when Shippen was eleven years old, he began spending the night at Parrott's home, at Parrott's request. Young Shippen, intrigued by the waterbed, asked to sleep in it. This necessitated that he and Parrott, nearly 33 years his senior, sleep together. On one such sleepover, Parrott fondled Shippen's penis. As these visits continued, the sexual conduct escalated to Parrott performing oral sex upon him. Shippen did, however, successfully resist Parrott's attempts at anal intercourse. Similar sexual encounters occurred when Shippen's twin stayed overnight with Parrott.
As Parrott continued his relationship with the mother, and the boys, he provided the boys with money, clothes and gifts, including securing the return of a repossessed car and replenishing their checking accounts when the balance was low. At one point, he gave Shippen a car, with Parrott remaining on the title as lienholder.
Conversely, Shippen's high school academic performance was sub-par. His aggressive behavior not only led to fights, but on one occasion at age 16, he took a loaded pistol to Parrott's home with the intent of killing him. Shippen was by no means monogamous, engaging in sexual relationships with a male classmate and his future wife, Juli, yet continuing his encounters with Parrott. In 1984, when Juli became pregnant, Shippen married her, in part, to escape Parrott's advances. Although no sexual relations between the men occurred during the marriage, they frequently communicated with one another. Occasionally, Parrott sent gifts and money to the couple. In 1986, following marital problems and Shippen's increased involvement with the gay [community] in Minneapolis and other homosexual relationships, he and Juli separated. They divorced two years later. Despite six months of individual and group counseling during his separation, Shippen was unable to reconcile his conflicting homosexual and heterosexual [feelings].
One night in May 1987, Shippen permitted Parrott to stay at his home. Shippen awoke during the night to find Parrott fondling his genitals. Parrott also attempted to perform oral sex on him, but Shippen repulsed the attempt. Parrott again visited Shippen [in June, 1987]. Upon entering the home, Parrott pushed Shippen to the couch, attempted to kiss him and place his hand inside Shippen's pants and tried to force oral sex on Shippen. Once more, Shippen successfully fought off Parrott's advances.
Since 1986, Shippen has continued therapy for mental disorders arising from his sexual conflicts. [At the time of trial he was involved in] a homosexual lifestyle in Colorado.
Shippen I, 506 N.W.2d at 84-85.
¶3 In 1989, Shippen commenced this action for damages. Following a trial to the court, Shippen received a judgment for $75,846.88 in compensatory damages and $113,000.00 in punitive damages. The damages were based on two causes of action: sexual assault and battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The damages were awarded for Parrott's acts from 1975 through the two assaults in 1987.
¶4 Parrott appealed that judgment contending that two statutes of limitation barred the suit. In Shippen I, we considered that defense in light of the time and nature of each act. We held that Shippen could not avoid the statute of limitation defense under a continuing tort theory because the sexual contact stopped in 1984 and did not resume until 1987. We also held that any "continued ill effects" of the barred actions were not actionable as a continuing tort. We concluded, however, that "[the two] assaults and batteries occurring two years prior to [the] filing [of the suit were] actionable." Shippen I, 506 N.W.2d at 86. "[N]o claims occurring prior to January 3, 1986 under an [intentional infliction of emotional distress] theory--January 3, 1987 for assault and battery--are actionable, i.e., only those sexual contacts occurring during May and June of 1987 fall inside the [statute of limitations]." Id.
¶5 Because the trial court's original judgment included damages for Parrott's non-actionable conduct dating back sixteen years to 1975, we reversed the damage award. Id. at 87. We remanded the matter to the trial court "for a reassessment of compensatory damages for those torts suffered during the statutory period ..., particularly those two acts in 1987 ... and punitive damages for those causes of action occurring subsequent to January 3, 1986." Id.
¶6 On remand, there was a substantial disagreement between the parties concerning the right to present new evidence and the scope of further discovery. Parrott objected to the introduction of any additional evidence. On the other hand, Shippen did not respond to Parrott's discovery requests regarding new evidence. After almost one year of procedural disputes, including an intermediate appeal to this Court, the trial court decided not to receive additional evidence. The trial court determined that it would apportion damages between the actionable and non-actionable events on the original trial record. 1
¶7 On remand, the trial court heard oral argument concerning the apportionment of damages. The trial court ultimately reduced the compensatory award to $49,700.00 for the two 1987 assaults. The trial court did not reduce the punitive award of $113,000.00. Parrott appeals again.
¶8 The trial court took the following action with respect to each element of Shippen's claimed damages:
Compensatory Damages
Original Award Apportioned Award
A. $7,476.88--was initially awarded for $1,130--was awarded on remand
Shippen's past medical, The trial court apportioned
psychological, hospital and this amount to the 1987
counseling expenses. assaults because $1,130 of
the $7,476.88 was incurred
after the 1987 assaults
B. $28,800--was initially awarded for past $9,000--was awarded on remand
mental anguish, pain, suffering and The trial court arrived at
distress. The trial court awarded $5 $9,000 by awarding $5 a day
a day or $1,800 a year for 16 years from May and June of "1986."
from 1975. (Both parties agree that the
year "1986" is a
typographical error because
the assaults occurred in
1987. Consequently, Shippen
concedes that this award
should be further reduced by
one year's damages ($1,800)
to $7,200).
C. $33,720--was initially awarded for four $33,720--was again awarded on
to five years of future therapy, remand.
medication and psychiatric services
the trial court found would be
necessary.
D. $5,850--was initially awarded for four $5,850--was again awarded on
to five years of future mental remand.
anguish and suffering the trial court
found Shippen would endure.
Total: $75,846.88 $49,700.00
Punitive Damages
E. $113,000--was initially awarded. The $113,000--was again awarded on
punitive damages were calculated as remand.
35 percent of Parrott's net worth
after payment of compensatory
damages. These punitive damages were
originally awarded to "punish"
Parrott for his conduct over the past
16 years for "that which every adult
knows
...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grynberg v. Citation Oil & Gas Corp.
...from an intent point of view, would be an intentional malicious assault or attack against a person. Id. See Shippen v. Parrott, 1996 SD 105, 553 N.W.2d 503 (Shippen II ); Zahrowski v. Dahl, 78 S.D. 255, 100 N.W.2d 802 (1960); Stene, ¶43 Cases where the defendant or its operating officers kn......
-
Landstrom v. Shaver, s. 19490-19492
...a remittitur based on excessive damages, it is conditional with the plaintiff receiving the option of a new trial. Shippen v. Parrott, 1996 S.D. 105, p 30, 553 N.W.2d 503, 511; Smith v. Highmore Farm Ltd., Partnership, 489 N.W.2d 908, 914 (S.D.1992). However, here, the trial court did not h......
-
Biegler v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co.
...affirmance upon remittitur in those cases where we determined that a punitive damage award was excessive. Shippen v. Parrott, 1996 SD 105, 553 N.W.2d 503 (Shippen II); Grynberg v. Citation Oil & Gas, 1997 SD 121, 573 N.W.2d 493; Hannahs v. Noah, 83 S.D. 296, 158 N.W.2d 678 (1968); Stene v. ......
-
Leisinger v. Jacobson
...SD 94 at ¶ 26, 552 N.W.2d at 810. See also Grynberg, 1997 SD 121 at ¶ 50, 573 N.W.2d at 508 (reducing punitive damages award); Shippen v. Parrott, 1996 SD 105, ¶ 29, 553 N.W.2d 503, 511 (same). Our decision to do so in this case is based on the fact that "the purpose of punitive damages is ......