Thy N. Tran v. Thi T. Vo
2017 Ark. App. 618
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Tran, a partner in a nail-salon partnership with Thi Vo and Tran Ngoc Uyen Vo, was ousted and sued for breach of contract and conversion; a jury awarded $57,200 compensatory and $114,400 punitive damages.
- Vo moved for a new trial or remittitur; the trial court upheld compensatory damages but, sua sponte, found the punitive-damages instruction incomplete because it omitted the definition of "clear and convincing evidence."
- The trial court granted a new trial or remittitur as to punitive damages, giving Tran the option to accept remittitur or proceed to retrial; Tran appealed that order.
- Vo had objected at trial only to the giving of a punitive-damages instruction at all (arguing lack of malice evidence), but did not object to the form of the model instruction or to the missing definition when it was read.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial/remittitur based on the sua sponte objection to the omitted definition and found that the court did abuse its discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly granted new trial/remittitur because punitive instruction omitted definition of "clear and convincing evidence" | Tran: The omission did not warrant new trial; jury was otherwise instructed on burden and not shown to be confused. | Vo: The missing definition constituted an error/irregularity justifying new trial/remittitur. | Court: Reversed — trial court abused discretion; Vo waived objection by not timely objecting and trial court raised the issue sua sponte. |
| Whether failure to object to instruction form forfeits appellate relief | Tran: Failure to object at time of instruction waives error. | Vo: Court may sua sponte correct instructional errors in interest of justice. | Court: Rule 51 requires timely objection; failure to object waives challenge; sua sponte relief here improper. |
| Whether remittitur/new trial standards were satisfied (excessiveness, passion, prejudice) | Tran: No showing of excessiveness, passion, or prejudice to justify remittitur. | Vo: Argued various grounds in motion (e.g., punitive damages improper on breach), but not the instruction definition. | Court: Remittitur not supported by record; trial court did not base order on proper remittitur grounds. |
| Whether jury presumed to follow instructions absent query | Tran: Presumption that jury followed instructions; no jury question showed confusion. | Vo: (Implicit) jury may have been misled without definition. | Court: Presumption applies; lack of jury query supports that instruction omission did not warrant new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holmes v. Hollingsworth, 234 Ark. 347 (1961) (remittitur available when award is grossly excessive or product of passion or prejudice)
- McNair v. McNair, 316 Ark. 299 (1994) (trial court may order remittitur sua sponte)
- Smith v. Hansen, 323 Ark. 188 (1996) (de novo review of remittitur of punitive damages)
- United Ins. Co. of Am. v. Murphy, 331 Ark. 364 (1998) (factors for reviewing punitive-damages awards)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Nuckolls, 320 Ark. 15 (1995) (standards for overturning punitive-damages awards)
- Grubbs v. Hindes, 101 Ark. App. 405 (2008) (party who failed to timely object to instruction cannot later rely on it to obtain a new trial)