Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. v. Day, 3092
| Decision Date | 24 April 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 3092,3092 |
| Court | Alaska Supreme Court |
| Parties | STURM, RUGER & CO., INC., a Connecticut corporation, Appellant, v. Michael James DAY, Appellee. Michael James DAY, Cross-Appellant, v. STURM, RUGER & CO., INC., a Connecticut corporation, Cross-Appellee. |
Robert L. Richmond, Richmond, Willoughby & Willard, Anchorage, Kenneth P. Jacobus, Hughes, Thorsness, Gantz, Powell & Brundin, Anchorage, and Edward L. Lascher, Ventura, Cal. (in association), for appellant/cross-appellee.
H. Bixler Whiting, Whiting & Rosie, Fairbanks, for appellee/cross-appellant.
Before RABINOWITZ, C. J., CONNOR, and BURKE, JJ., and DIMOND, Senior Justice.
Appellee has petitioned for further rehearing as to one question not addressed in our opinion on rehearing, Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. v. Day, 615 P.2d 621 (Alaska 1980), rehearing of 594 P.2d 38, and we have granted rehearing.
In awarding attorney's fees at the close of this case, the superior court did not award any fee as to the punitive damage portion of the judgment, because the court believed that it was inappropriate to award an attorney's fee as to punitive damages. In our opinion this was error.
In Haskins v. Shelden, 558 P.2d 487 (Alaska 1976), we stated, in connection with the question of attorney's fees as to a punitive damage award:
(emphasis in original).
The trial court has broad discretion in determining the appropriate attorney's fee. But it cannot arbitrarily deny attorney's fees on a punitive damage award. 1 If it departs from the schedule in Civil Rule 82, it must give reasons for its nonadherence to the schedule.
Therefore, as in Haskins v. Shelden, we direct that on remand the superior court should be guided by Civil Rule 82 in determining an attorney's fee as to both compensatory and punitive damages.
REMANDED.
MATTHEWS, J., not participating.
1 See Cooper v. Carlson, 511 P.2d 1305, 1310 (Alaska 1973).
The importance of awarding attorney's fees as to punitive damages is apparent when one considers torts such as defamation. Sometimes the actual damages are merely nominal, but the punitive damages are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Wade
...& Co. v. Day, 594 P.2d 38 (Alaska 1979), modified on other grounds, 615 P.2d 621, 624 (Alaska 1980), modified on other grounds, 627 P.2d 204 (Alaska 1981); Huggins v. Deinhard, 127 Ariz. 358, 621 P.2d 45 (App.1980); White v. Brock, 41 Colo.App. 156, 584 P.2d 1224 (1978); Collens v. New Cana......
-
Acosta v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd.
...source of an injury caused by a product defect, see Sturm, Ruger & Co. v. Day, 594 P.2d 38, modified, 615 P.2d 621 (1980) on rehearing, 627 P.2d 204 (Alaska), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 894, 102 S.Ct. 391, 70 L.Ed.2d 209 (1981); Owen, Punitive Damages in Products Liability Litigation, 74 Mich.L......
-
Jackson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
...727 F.2d 350 (5th Cir.1984); Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. v. Day, 594 P.2d 38 (Alaska 1979), modified, 615 P.2d 621 (Alaska 1980), on reh'g, 627 P.2d 204 (Alaska), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 894, 102 S.Ct. 391, 70 L.Ed.2d 209 (1981); Unified School District No. 490 v. Celotex Corp., 629 P.2d 196, 6......
-
Barnwell v. Barber-Colman Co.
...jurisdictions include: Alaska--Sturm, Ruger and Co., Inc., v. Day, 594 P.2d 38 (Alaska 1979), modified, 615 P.2d 621 (1980), on reh'g., 627 P.2d 204, cert. denied, 454 U.S. 894, 102 S.Ct. 391, 70 L.Ed.2d 209 (1981); Arizona--Ferguson v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 132 Ariz. 47, 643 P.2d 1017 (Ct.A......