334 Ga. App. 884
Ga. Ct. App.2015Background
- Solomon was arrested for alleged shoplifting at Dillard’s; charges were nolle prossed for insufficient evidence.
- Solomon sued for malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, and punitive damages against The Higbee Company (Dillard’s), its security contractor, and employees.
- The trial was bifurcated: liability/compensatory damages and a separate punitive damages phase.
- At close of evidence Dillard’s moved for directed verdict on punitive damages only on insufficiency of bad-faith evidence, not on a legal bar to punitives; the court denied that motion.
- The jury awarded $250,000 compensatory damages and answered “yes” to a special interrogatory that punitive damages should be awarded; Dillard’s raised for the first time after the jury’s liability verdict that punitive damages were legally unavailable if the entire injury is to peace, happiness, or feelings.
- Trial proceeded to punitive-phase evidence; jury awarded $350,000 punitive damages. Trial court denied post-trial JMOL/new-trial, finding Dillard’s waived the legal objection by failing to timely object; Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether punitive damages were available where entire injury was to peace, happiness, or feelings under OCGA § 51-12-6 | Solomon: punitive damages allowed because defendant’s conduct could show willful misconduct and punitives are proper separate remedy | Dillard’s: OCGA § 51-12-6 bars punitive damages when entire injury is to peace, happiness, or feelings (so punitives legally unavailable) | Court assumed arguendo the statute might bar punitives but held Dillard’s waived the claim by failing to timely object or preserve the issue at trial |
| Whether defendant preserved the statutory-bar argument for appeal | Solomon: defendant failed to contemporaneously object; thus waived | Dillard’s: timely raised post-verdict via JMOL/new-trial; some comments by judge suggested preservation | Held: objection waived — defendant did not raise the legal-bar ground in directed verdict motion, did not object to jury charge/verdict form, and belatedly raised issue after jury verdict; JMOL/new-trial cannot assert grounds not in directed verdict |
| Whether punitive award was a double recovery given compensatory award for feelings only | Solomon: modern OCGA § 51-12-6 damages for feelings are not punitive, so no double recovery | Dillard’s: awarding punitives plus damages for feelings duplicates punishment | Held: no double-recovery issue because current § 51-12-6 damages are not punitive in nature; and defendant’s conduct contributed to submission, so cannot complain on that basis |
| Whether trial court’s remark that defendant "reserved the ruling" prevented waiver finding | Solomon: trial court’s passing remark did not amount to a binding preservation ruling | Dillard’s: court’s statement preserved the objection | Held: remark was not a final binding ruling preserving the issue; waiver stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Holland v. Caviness, 292 Ga. 332 (holds that when entire injury is to peace, happiness, or feelings, evidence of worldly circumstances and punitive damages are not permitted)
- Womack v. Johnson, 328 Ga. App. 543 (objections must be made at earliest opportunity to preserve error)
- Milum v. Banks, 283 Ga. App. 864 (failure to timely object to submission of issue to jury waives appellate complaint)
- James E. Warren, M.D., P.C. v. Weber & Warren Anesthesia Svcs., 272 Ga. App. 232 (JMOL must be grounded in issues raised in directed verdict motion)
- Little v. Chesser, 256 Ga. App. 228 (defendant waived challenge to punitive damages by waiting until after jury returned punitive verdict)
- Pampattiwar v. Hinson, 326 Ga. App. 163 (current § 51-12-6 damages are not punitive because worldly-circumstance inquiry was removed)