Smith v. Courter
Citation | 531 S.W.2d 743 |
Decision Date | 12 January 1976 |
Docket Number | No. 58951,58951 |
Parties | Ray SMITH, Appellant, v. Larry P. COURTER, M.D., et al., Respondents. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
James W. Jeans and Lantz Welch, Kansas City, for appellant.
Donald E. Raymond, and Dean F. Arnold, Kansas City, for respondents.
This appeal involves the opening portions of a closing argument to the jury made by plaintiff-appellant's attorney (hereinafter plaintiff) which allegedly improperly injected punitive damages into the case. After opinion by the Missouri court of appeals, Kansas City district, defendants-respondents (hereinafter defendants) petitioned this court for transfer. The motion was sustained and the appeal transferred pursuant to Art. V, sec. 10, Mo.Const., as amended 1970.
Portions of the court of appeals opinion are utilized without use of quotation marks.
In this malpractice suit, plaintiff originally sought damages from the defendant radiologists and also from a surgeon who was an additional defendant. After two days of trial, plaintiff settled with the surgeon for $5,000. The case against the defendant radiologists was submitted to a jury, which returned a verdict for $105,000.
Defendants moved for a new trial, asserting 19 separate grounds. The court granted the new trial on the single ground that the closing argument of plaintiff's counsel improperly injected an issue of punitive damages. On plaintiff's appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in so ruling, because defendants had not made sufficient objection to the argument; because the argument itself was not improper; and because in any event the error, if any, was harmless.
The portions of the argument which the trial court found objectionable, together with the objections made by defendants' counsel and the trial rulings are as follows:
Appellant contends the objection made by defendants' attorney was inadequate to advise the court and plaintiff's counsel of any complaint of error.
The trial court considered these contentions in detail as well as the more substantive contentions that the argument did not inject punitive damages into the case, as well as the issue of resulting prejudice, and in its order granting a new trial stated:
'Although only general objection was made by defendants' counsel to the portion of the argument last quoted, objection to the first quoted portion was made on the grounds of 'outside the issues' and the Court was in fact sufficiently apprised of and aware of the reason for the objection to the second quoted portion as well as to the first quoted portion.
'2. By allowing the aforementioned argument, over the objection of defendants, this Court allowed plaintiff to inject punitive damages into the case, such damages being outside the issues.
'As indicated by the punitive damage instruction in Sec. 10.01 of M.A.I. (2nd Ed.), where punitive damages are proper the jury 'may award plaintiff an additional amount as punitive damages in such sum as you believe will serve to punish defendant and to deter him and others from like conduct.'
'By the improper argument the jury was in effect told that 'through the adequacy of your verdict' you can deter defendants and others from like conduct.
While the objections made by defendants' counsel were not as precise as they might have been, they were sufficient to raise and preserve the point upon which the new trial was granted. Plaintiff had chosen to submit his case on a request for compensatory damages only. He had made no allegation or prayer nor had he submitted any instruction pertaining to any claim for punitive damages. So, if plaintiff's jury argument truly injected the issue of punitive damages, as held by the trial court, then the argument was indeed 'outside the issues' and defendants' objection was correct.
The court of appeals agreed with the trial court's assessment of plaintiff's argument saying,
While, on a cold record, it may be debatable as to whether or not plaintiff was intending to exhort the jury to include in its verdict a sum of money in addition to compensation for injuries sustained, which sum would be for the purpose of deterring defendants from similar future conduct and to deter others from like conduct, it is clear that the trial judge believed it to be just that--a plea for punitive damages--and for that reason ordered a new trial.
In Graves v. May Department Stores Co., 153 S.W.2d 778 (Mo.App.1941), cited by plaintiff, the reviewing court upheld the trial court's refusal to grant a mistrial to the defendant when plaintiff, over defendant's objection, argued that the way to get the defendant to replace its escalator with a better type was to bring in a ringing verdict that the defendant would long remember. The trial court thereupon cautioned the jury with respect to damages and overruled the motion for mistrial. The jury awarded plaintiff a verdict of $600.00.
On appeal, the court said at l.c. 785:
In the instant case we have a jury argument which the trial court held injected punitive damages into the case.
The court holds that the trial court's understanding of plaintiff's argument was reasonable and not an abuse of discretion.
Plaintiff's contention that the argument did not inject punitive damages into the case is overruled.
After holding that plaintiff's argument did erroneously inject punitive damages into the case, the court of appeals said:
The court of appeals then held that where defendants failed to assume the burden of demonstrating that the trial court erred in failing to find excessiveness, the erroneous argument would not be held prejudicial.
The defendants did allege excessiveness of the verdict in their motion for new trial and the Court of Appeals was correct in holding that where the trial court grants a new trial on a specified basis, as it did here, that ruling is deemed to constitute an overruling of all other grounds asserted in the motion for new trial. Burnett v. Johnson, 349 S.W.2d 19, 24 (Mo.1961); Took v. Wells, 331 Mo. 249, 53 S.W.2d 389 (1932); Hoehn v. Hampton, 483 S.W.2d 403, 407 (Mo.App.1972); Mosley v. St. Louis Public Service Co., 301 S.W.2d 797, 800 (Mo.1957).
This court does not believe the issues on this appeal are wholly controlled by the cases noted supra. What the amount of the jury's verdict would have been had the jury not been invited to include a punitive sum in its verdict would be pure speculation. What did happen is that the jury was told it could include as part of its compensatory damage award a punitive amount of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Vanskike v. ACF Industries, Inc.
...court could not know whether the compensatory damage verdict did or did not include a punitive sum. (10th Cir. 1966); Smith v. Courter, 531 S.W.2d 743, 746-47 (Mo.1976) Of course, a court cannot now know the mind of each juror as he goes about the task of deciding upon the amount of the ver......
-
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Tucker
...recognized that a "sending a message" argument may be improper where there is no allegation of punitive damages. (citing Smith v. Courter, 531 S.W.2d 743 (Mo. 1976); Maercks v. Birchansky, 549 So.2d 199 (Fla.App.1989)). Wal-Mart, however, failed to object to these statements during the clos......
-
Tune v. Synergy Gas Corp.
...the proposition that argument on the issue of damages can be prejudicial only if there is an excessive verdict. See, e.g., Smith v. Courter, 531 S.W.2d 743, 748 (Mo. banc 1976); McCormick v. Smith, 459 S.W.2d 272, 278 (Mo.1970); Chambers v. Kansas City, 446 S.W.2d 833, 841 (Mo.1969); Conlon......
-
Pierce v. Platte-Clay Elec. Co-op., Inc.
...will not interfere with the trial court's decision. Hoene v. Associated Dry Goods Corporation, 487 S.W.2d 479, 486 (Mo.1972); Smith v. Courter, 531 S.W.2d 743, 746 (Mo. banc 1976). However, Missouri courts have long shown displeasure with "send a message" arguments in cases where punitive d......