88 So. 3d 856
Ala. Civ. App.2011Background
- Greech Ebbole运营 LA Body Art, a Mobile tattoo/body-piercing shop since 1995; Averette operates Demented Needle, LLC at 205 Dauphin Street since 2007; Ebbole sued for slander, libel, invasion of privacy after 2008 move; alleged dignitary harms include disease claims, altered poster accusing her of disease, and a plaster cast torso used as a mannequin with satanic symbols; August 2009 amended complaint added Tanner as a defendant for MySpace postings; trial produced a first verdict of zero compensatory damages but punitive damages awarded against Demented Needle, Averette, and Tanner; jury recharged with nominal-compensatory instruction, awarding $1 each in compensatory damages; post-verdict motions and appeals followed; appellate remand directed for potential remittitur on punitive damages; on remand, the court conducted a hearing and affirmations/remittitur were issued with Demented Needle remitted from $200,000 to $50,000; other punitive-damages determinations remained affirmed or conditioned.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in refusing to accept the first verdict | Ebbole argues the first verdict showed compensatory injury existed. | Averette/Demented Needle contend no compensable injury supported any award. | No reversible error; slander per se allows presumed damages and nominal damages supported by evidence. |
| Good Count/Bad Count applicability | All counts supported; evidence adequate for each claim. | Aspinwall rule requires specific challenges to supported counts; bad-count not present. | Not a good-count/bad-count problem; each count supported. |
| Malice standard for libel involving Tanner's MySpace postings | Malice can be inferred from failure to retract after demand. | Opinion-like statements cannot be proven false; no malice shown. | Jury could evaluate malice; trial court did not err in submitting issue to jury. |
| Punitive damages excessiveness under Gore/Hammond-Green Oil | Punitive damages appropriate given egregious conduct and intent to deter. | Damages excessive given net worth and potential financial ruin; remittitur required. | Affirmed Averette and Tanner; Demented Needle remitted to $50,000 under small-business cap; remittitur ordered for Demented Needle. |
Key Cases Cited
- BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1996) (established Gore guideposts for punitive-damages review)
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2003) (ratios and proportionality in punitive damages; due-process considerations)
- TXO Prod. Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp., 509 U.S. 443 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1993) (ratio considerations in punitive damages)
- Haslip v. Haslip, 499 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1991) (early due-process guidance for punitive damages)
- Gore guideposts (Green Oil Co. v. Hornsby; Hammond v. City of Gadsden), 589 So.2d 218 (Ala.1989); 493 So.2d 1374 (Ala.1986) (Alabama Supreme Court) (Hammond-Green Oil factors for evaluating punitive damages in Alabama)