Watson v. Dixon, No. 103A99.
| Citation | 532 S.E.2d 175,352 N.C. 343 |
| Decision Date | 13 July 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 103A99. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
| Parties | Sarah Joan WATSON v. Bobby DIXON and Duke University. |
Glenn, Mills & Fisher, P.A., by Stewart W. Fisher and William S. Mills, Durham, for plaintiff-appellee.
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak and Stewart, P.C., by Guy F. Driver, Jr., and Robert A. Sar, Raleigh, for defendant-appellant Duke University.
The sole issue in this case is whether the Court of Appeals erred by concluding that the punitive damage liability of an employer under a theory of vicarious liability, such as ratification, can exceed the punitive damage liability of the employee. For the reasons stated herein, we conclude that the Court of Appeals did not err, and we affirm its decision.1
Since the issue in this case is not fact-laden and presents only a question of law, only a brief recitation of the facts is necessary. Sarah Watson (plaintiff) and defendant Bobby Dixon (Dixon) were employed by defendant Duke University (Duke). Plaintiff and Dixon were co-employees in the sterile processing department of the Duke University Medical Center. Shortly after plaintiff began working at Duke in July 1991, Dixon engaged in a seven- to eight-month campaign of intimidation and harassment against plaintiff. Stripped of the graphic details, Dixon's conduct consisted of extremely inappropriate comments to plaintiff and offensive touching of plaintiff in the workplace. On the several occasions when Dixon harassed or intimidated plaintiff, plaintiff reported Dixon's conduct to various Duke officials; however, Duke took no serious action until after March 1992, when management finally transferred plaintiff to another department. As a result of Dixon's conduct, plaintiff suffered a variety of ailments including crying spells, vomiting, headaches, nightmares, and insomnia. Plaintiff was also later diagnosed with depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.
On 22 October 1992, plaintiff initiated the underlying action against defendants. In her complaint, plaintiff asserted claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress; negligent infliction of emotional distress, including claims of Duke's negligent hiring and retention of Dixon; and assault. Defendants answered the complaint, denying all pertinent allegations and asserting various defenses. Defendants subsequently filed motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. On 18 July 1995, the trial court granted Duke's motions to dismiss on plaintiff's claims for assault and negligent hiring and dismissed the negligent infliction of emotional distress claims against both defendants.
The remaining claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent retention of employee against Duke and the remaining claims of assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Dixon were tried before a jury at the 23 September 1996 Civil Session of Superior Court. At the close of the presentation of evidence from both sides, the jury answered the issues submitted by the trial court as follows:
On 21 October 1996, the trial court entered its judgment incorporating the jury's findings; adding interest; and taxing defendants for expert witness fees, deposition expenses, and court costs. On 28 October 1996, defendants filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a new trial, or a remittitur as to damages, which the trial court denied on 15 November 1996. Both defendants appealed the trial court's denial of this motion to the Court of Appeals.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals concluded that "the trial court properly entered judgment on plaintiff's claims against Dixon for intentional infliction of emotional distress and against Duke for ratification." Watson v. Dixon, 130 N.C.App. 47, 56, 502 S.E.2d 15, 22 (1998). However, the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court as to the punitive damages award and remanded the case for a determination of the punitive damages to be awarded against both defendants. See id. All parties petitioned for a rehearing, which the Court of Appeals allowed without additional briefing or arguments.
Upon rehearing, a majority of the Court of Appeals panel affirmed the trial court's judgment awarding punitive damages and stated that it could not "say that as a matter of law the punitive damage awards against Dixon for $5,000 and Duke for $500,000 was [sic] an abuse of discretion." Watson v. Dixon, 132 N.C.App. 329, 334, 511 S.E.2d 37, 41 (1999). Judge McGee concurred in part and dissented in part, concluding that "the liability of the employer under a theory of vicarious liability, such as respondeat superior or ratification, cannot be in excess of that of the employee." Id. at 335, 511 S.E.2d at 41 (McGee, J., dissenting in part).
The propriety and sufficiency of the evidence to support punitive damages is not at issue in this case since all three judges on the Court of Appeals panel agreed that there was direct evidence to support punitive damages against both Dixon and Duke. Id. at 334, 511 S.E.2d at 41; id. at 335, 511 S.E.2d at 41 (McGee, J., concurring in part). Our review here is limited to the resolution of defendant Duke's contention, based on Judge McGee's dissenting opinion, that the punitive damage liability of an employer under a theory of vicarious liability, such as ratification, cannot exceed the punitive damage liability of the employee. For the reasons below, we disagree with defendant's contention.
This case appears to present an issue of first impression for this Court. In support of its position, defendant relies on Pinnix v. Griffin, 221 N.C. 348, 20 S.E.2d 366 (1942) and its progeny. See also MacFarlane v. N.C. Wildlife Resources Comm'n, 244 N.C. 385, 93 S.E.2d 557 (1956),
overruled in part on other grounds by Barney v. N.C. State Highway Comm'n, 282 N.C. 278, 192 S.E.2d 273 (1972). These cases addressed compensatory damages and not punitive damages. Compensatory damages serve a purpose different from that of punitive damages. The objective of compensatory damages is to restore the plaintiff to his original condition or to make the plaintiff whole. See Bowen v. Fidelity Bank, 209 N.C. 140, 144, 183 S.E. 266, 268 (1936) ( ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rhyne v. K-Mart Corp.
...from similar behavior." Newton v. Standard Fire Ins. Co., 291 N.C. 105, 113, 229 S.E.2d 297, 302 (1976); see also Watson v. Dixon, 352 N.C. 343, 348, 532 S.E.2d 175, 178 (2000); Oestreicher v. American Nat'l Stores, Inc., 290 N.C. 118, 134, 225 S.E.2d 797, 807-08 (1976). "Punitive damages a......
-
McKiver v. Murphy-Brown, LLC
...consideration of the defendant's ability to pay "as evidenced by its revenues or net worth" (emphasis added)); Watson v. Dixon , 352 N.C. 343, 532 S.E.2d 175, 178 (2000) (same). In sum, I agree with this part of the majority opinion's decision because evidence of the corporate parents’ fina......
-
Rhyne v. K-Mart Corp.
...right to punitive damages as being that person's property. See Watson v. Dixon, 130 N.C.App. 47, 502 S.E.2d 15 (1998), aff'd, 352 N.C. 343, 532 S.E.2d 175 (2000); Lynch v. North Carolina Dept. of Justice, 93 N.C.App. 57, 376 S.E.2d 247 (1989); Hunt v. Hunt, 86 N.C.App. 323, 357 S.E.2d 444, ......
-
Guthrie v. Conroy
...Watson v. Dixon, 130 N.C.App. 47, 52-53, 502 S.E.2d 15, 19-20 (1998),on reh'g, 132 N.C.App. 329, 511 S.E.2d 37 (1999), aff'd, 352 N.C. 343, 532 S.E.2d 175 (2000) (quoting Stanback v. Stanback, 297 N.C. 181, 196, 254 S.E.2d 611, 622 (1979)) (defendant engaged in extreme and outrageous conduc......
-
Copying copyright's willful infringement standard: a comparison of enhanced damages in patent law and copyright law.
...See text accompanying notes 141 and 145 (pointing out risks of patenting and alternative to patenting). (147.) See Watson v. Dixon, 532 S.E.2d 175, 178 (N.C. 2000) (stating purpose of punitive damages as punishment and (148.) See Hyde, supra note 120, at 378 (differentiating between ordinar......