Smith v. Printup
Citation | 938 P.2d 1261,262 Kan. 587 |
Decision Date | 06 June 1997 |
Docket Number | No. 76025,76025 |
Parties | Barry L. SMITH, Administrator of the Estate of Glen C. Smith, deceased, et al., Appellants/Cross-appellees, v. Albert PRINTUP, Southwest Movers, Inc., The Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, and American States Insurance Company, Appellees, and American Red Ball Transit Company, Inc., Appellee/Cross-appellant, and Kansas Turnpike Authority, Myers Construction Company, and Allied Laboratories, Defendants. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Kansas |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The standard of review applied to questions involving the admissibility of evidence at trial is one of abuse of discretion. Judicial discretion is abused when judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, which is another way of saying that discretion is abused only where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court.
2. The qualifications of an expert witness and the admissibility of the expert's testimony are within the sound discretion of the trial court.
3. Subject to the provisions of K.S.A. 60-3701, the standard of review of a punitive damage award is one of abuse of discretion. We must first determine whether the provisions of K.S.A. 60-3701 have been applied by the trial court in the determination of the amount of punitive damages. Once that determination has been made, the amount awarded will be set aside only upon a showing that the trial court abused its discretion.
4. When determining the amount of punitive damages to be awarded under K.S.A. 60-3701, it is incumbent on the trial court to make sufficient findings of fact to afford meaningful appellate review.
5. Kansas law supports a conclusion that evidence of a victim's financial status or character is not relevant in a determination of the amount of punitive damages. While the relative financial positions of the plaintiff and the defendant may be considered, such consideration does not include adverse credit information or character evidence concerning the plaintiff.
6. Punitive damages are not given upon any theory that the plaintiff has any just right to recover them but are given only upon the theory that the defendant deserves punishment for his or her wrongful acts and that it is proper for the public to impose them upon the defendant.
7. In determining the sufficiency of an affidavit filed for the purpose of disqualification of a trial judge pursuant to K.S.A. 20-311d, we examine whether the affidavit provides facts and reasons pertaining to the party or his or her attorney which, if true, give fair support for a well-grounded belief that he or she will not obtain a fair trial. The question of sufficiency of the affidavit is one of law for the court to determine. Previous adverse rulings of a trial judge, although numerous and erroneous, are not ordinarily and alone sufficient to show such bias or prejudice as would disqualify him or her as a judge.
8. The standard to be applied to a charge of lack of impartiality is whether the charge is grounded in facts that would create reasonable doubt concerning the court's impartiality, not in the mind of the court itself, or even necessarily in the mind of the litigant filing the motion, but rather in the mind of a reasonable person with knowledge of all the circumstances.
Randall E. Fisher, of Law Offices of Randall E. Fisher, Wichita, argued the cause Stephen M. Kerwick, of Foulston & Siefkin, L.L.P., Wichita, argued the cause, and Jay F. Fowler, of the same firm, was with him, on the brief, for appellee/cross-appellant American Red Ball Transit Company, Inc.
and was on the briefs, for appellants/cross-appellees.
Randy J. Troutt, of Kahrs, Nelson, Fanning, Hite & Kellogg, L.L.P., Wichita, argued the cause, and Vince P. Wheeler, of the same firm, was on the brief, for appellees Southwest Movers, Inc., and American States Insurance Co.
This is the second appeal involving punitive damages awarded to the estate of Glen C. Smith, deceased, brought by the administrator, plaintiff Barry L. Smith, et al. (Smith). In Smith v. Printup, 254 Kan. 315, 866 P.2d 985 (1993), we remanded this case with instructions. This appeal basically involves two questions: (1) whether reversible error occurred during the remand proceeding to determine if defendant Southwest Movers, Inc., (Southwest) authorized or ratified the wanton conduct of its employee, defendant Albert Printup; and (2) whether the trial court erred in reassessing punitive damages against defendants American Red Ball Transit Company, Inc., (Red Ball) and Printup. We conclude that no reversible error occurred and affirm.
The facts giving rise to the underlying claims in this action are set forth in Smith v. Printup:
254 Kan. at 318-19, 866 P.2d 985.
Additional facts from our first opinion and new facts developed upon remand are set forth in the discussion of the alleged errors raised in this second appeal. In the first appeal, a majority of this court reached the following conclusions and remanded the case for further proceedings:
"(5) The court will be required to determine the amount of punitive damages to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Walker
...not be deemed legally sufficient for any belief that bias or prejudice exists." K.S.A.2006 Supp. 20-311d(c)(5); Smith v. Printup, 262 Kan. 587, 608, 938 P.2d 1261 (1997). Walker fails to point to anything in the record demonstrating that Judge Kennedy actually exhibited bias or prejudice at......
-
Hawkinson v. Bennett
...is abused only where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court. [Citation omitted.]" Smith v. Printup, 262 Kan. 587, 592, 938 P.2d 1261 (1997). See also City of Dodge City v. Hadley, 262 Kan. 234, 239, 936 P.2d 1347 (1997) (admission of expert testimony); McKissick......
-
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. v. Vinson
...v. Alabama Power Co., supra, appears in Smith v. Printup, 254 Kan. 315, 866 P.2d 985, 997 (1993), appeal after remand, 262 Kan. 587, 938 P.2d 1261 (1997), where the Kansas Supreme Court cited with approval the dissenting opinions of Justices Maddox and Houston. Perhaps such a case striking ......
-
George v. Capital South Mortg. Investments, Inc.
...reasonable person would agree with the court. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in so ruling. See Smith v. Printup, 262 Kan. 587, 592, 938 P.2d 1261 (1997). This issue V. ATTORNEY FEES After the jury found in the plaintiffs' favor on the fraud and usury counts, the plaintif......
-
Education of Attorneys on Appeal And/or Cross Appeal
...but not briefed are abandoned). [30] E.g., Rose v. Via Christi Health Sys. Inc., 276 Kan. 539; 78 P.3d 798 (2003); Smith v. Printup, 262 Kan. 587; 938 P2d 1261 (1997). [31] In Mosher v. Speedstar Div. of AMCA Int'l Inc., 52 F.3d 913 (11th Cir. 1995), the defendant was denied summary judgmen......