FOX v. CROWGEY
346 P.3d 425
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2014Background
- Don Fox (Big Giant Warehouse) sued his son Tim Fox (Fox Wholesale) and Stan Crowgey/K.I.N.E. alleging conversion, interference with business relations, breach of fiduciary duty, and misappropriation of confidential information for deals Tim and Crowgey pursued while employed at Big Giant.
- Litigation spanned separate suits consolidated for trial; Crowgey/K.I.N.E. defaulted; Tim survived summary judgment on several claims and trial proceeded against Tim only; Don sought to amend to add deceit/fraud but the court struck fraud earlier and later denied adding deceit at trial.
- Six-day jury trial: evidence conflicted—Don presented an expert (Klingenberg) estimating substantial lost profits; Tim presented rebuttal evidence and an expert (Daily) criticizing those damage calculations and showing alternative causes for decline.
- Jury returned a general verdict for Don but awarded $0 actual damages; initially found reckless conduct by clear and convincing evidence but, after court admonition about inconsistency, re-affirmed $0 damages and found no clear-and-convincing reckless or malicious conduct.
- Don moved for a new trial arguing the verdict was inconsistent and that the court erred by refusing fraud instruction and by post-verdict juror discussion; the trial court denied the motion and Don appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a general verdict for liability but $0 damages is inconsistent and requires new trial | Fox: liability found on multiple claims; damages were essential and proved, so $0 is inconsistent and mandates new trial | Tim: evidence on damages conflicted; $0 was supported by testimony and expert rebuttal, so verdict is permissible | Court: Verdict not inconsistent; competent conflicting evidence supported $0 award; no new trial required |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in denying motion for new trial based on alleged inconsistency | Fox: trial court should have granted new trial on damages or whole case | Tim: denial proper because jurors reasonably concluded damages not proven | Court: No abuse of discretion; trial court within discretion to deny new trial |
| Whether post‑verdict discussion between judge and jurors was improper/ex parte and tainted outcome | Fox: judge’s off‑record juror comments created appearance of impropriety and influenced denial of new trial | Tim: judge’s brief post‑verdict inquiry was permitted and did not go to merits | Court: No violation; judge’s limited inquiry complied with judicial conduct rules and did not address merits or improperly influence result |
| Whether trial court erred in refusing jury instruction on fraud/deceit | Fox: evidence warranted deceit instruction; refusal prejudiced him | Tim: fraud claim had been dismissed earlier and Fox failed to preserve request to re‑instruct at trial | Court: Fox failed to preserve objection; fraud was not a claim at trial; no fundamental error in refusing instruction |
Key Cases Cited
- Stroud v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 37 P.3d 783 (2001 OK 76) (standard that jury verdict will be upheld if any competent evidence supports it and no prejudicial instruction errors).
- Burkett v. Moran, 410 P.2d 876 (1965 OK 165) (definition of a verdict inconsistent within itself where some elements of damages are allowed and others clearly proved but denied).
- Baker v. Locke Supply Co., 736 P.2d 155 (1987 OK 27) (plaintiff bears burden to prove damages by preponderance; conflicting evidence on damages is for jury).
- Pine Island RV Resort, Inc. v. Resort Mgmt., Inc., 922 P.2d 609 (1996 OK 83) (appellate review must determine whether evidence supports an award of zero damages).
- Death of Lofton v. Green, 905 P.2d 790 (1995 OK 109) (verdict will not be set aside as inadequate unless beyond measure unreasonable or indicative of passion/prejudice).
- Wright v. Central Oklahoma Milk Producers Ass'n, 509 P.2d 464 (1973 OK 15) (upholding verdict that denied certain damage elements where evidence conflicted).
- Kerlin v. Hunt, 310 P.3d 1114 (2013 OK CIV APP 83) (ex parte juror discussions that probe merits or basis of verdict create appearance of impropriety and prejudice).
- B-Star, Inc. v. Polyone Corp., 114 P.3d 1082 (2005 OK 8) (preservation rule for objections to jury instructions and standard for fundamental‑error review).