Spencer Ondirsek v. Bernie Hoffman
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 20439
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Alamo led TACM, controlled members’ finances, and enforced isolation from outsiders, including prohibiting schooling and outside contact.
- Ondrisek and Calagna, raised in TACM, endured repeated, severe beatings and forced unpaid labor starting at a young age; they witnessed abuse and lived under fear and indoctrination.
- Both escaped TACM at age 18 and suffer ongoing psychological effects; Alamo was later convicted in a separate case for transporting minors for illicit sex.
- Ondrisek and Calagna sued Alamo for battery, outrage, and conspiracy; Alamo sought a jury instruction that reasonable corporal punishment is a defense to battery.
- The district court refused the corporal punishment defense instruction; the jury awarded $3 million in compensatory damages and $30 million in punitive damages to each plaintiff; remittitur was denied.
- On appeal, the court affirms in part and reverses in part, including reducing punitive damages to $12 million per plaintiff after applying due process standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does First Amendment religious freedom shield Alamo from liability? | Alamo: religious practice protected; injuries arise from religion. | Alamo: conduct within religious practice cannot injure others with impunity. | No protection; injuries to others not immune from liability. |
| Did the district court abuse its discretion by refusing the corporal punishment defense instruction for battery? | Alamo: reasonable corporal punishment is a defense to battery. | Ondrisek and Calagna: instruction not applicable to outrage/conspiracy. | Harmless error; damages still supported by verdict on outrage/conspiracy. |
| Was the evidence sufficient to support a claim for outrage? | Alamo engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct. | Evidence insufficient to meet outrage standard. | Evidence supported the outrage finding; underlying damages valid. |
| Are the compensatory and punitive damages, and the 10:1 ratio, constitutionally permissible? | Damages and ratio necessary to punish and deter. | Ratio too high; due process issues; excessive relative to compensatory award. | Punitive damages reversed and remanded to $12 million each, yielding a 4:1 ratio; constitutional under Gore Campbell framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sharp v. Sigler, 408 F.2d 966 (8th Cir. 1969) (free exercise not absolute; state may prevent injurious religious acts)
- Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890) (religious belief protected; exercise may be restricted to avoid harm)
- Feiner v. New York, 340 U.S. 315 (1951) (state may regulate speech that incites unlawful conduct)
- United States v. Kelly, 436 F.3d 992 (8th Cir. 2006) (standards for reviewing sufficiency of evidence de novo)
- Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394 (2006) (standard for judgment as a matter of law in relation to Rule 50)
- Gore v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., 517 U.S. 559 (1996) (due process analysis for punitive damages; guidelines for ratio)
- Campbell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 538 U.S. 408 (2003) (reprehensibility and ratio guidance for punitive awards)
- Eden Electrical, Ltd. v. Amana Co., 370 F.3d 824 (8th Cir. 2004) (extremely reprehensible conduct supports high punitive damages)
- Conseco Fin. Servicing Corp. v. North American Mortgage Co., 381 F.3d 811 (8th Cir. 2004) (ratio and reprehensibility considerations in punitive awards)
- Boerner v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., 394 F.3d 594 (8th Cir. 2005) (1:1 punitive-to-compensatory ratio where appropriate)