*1 945A.2d 1244 KHALIFA, Afaf Nassar et al.
Michael SHANNON. 56, Sept. Term,
No. 2007. Appeals Maryland. Court of April *3 (William Brennan, William Jr., C. Jr. Mitchell, A. Brennan LLP, Greenbelt), Sullivan & brief, McKenna appellants. on (Miles P.C., Towson, Ed- Stockbridge & J. Stephen Cullen brief, LLC, on Fratus/Brady, Annapolis), Brady, ward W. appellee. HARRELL, BELL, C.J, RAKER, before
Argued (Retired, GREENE, BATTAGLIA, ALAN M. WILNER (Retired, R. and DALE specially assigned), CATHELL specially assigned), JJ.
BATTAGLIA, J. a of action for issue in this is whether cause
The case custody rights and visitation intentional interference with father, Shannon, his former against Michael sustainable Shannon, mother, her Afaf Nassar wife, Khalifa Nermeen fled with the Egypt both of whom (“Appellants”), Khalifa children, Appellants who remain two minor there. couple’s that interfer- complaint, arguing the father’s moved to dismiss cognizable is not a custody rights and visitation ence with if alternatively, that even Maryland, cause of action tort, allege fails to Complaint Maryland recognizes services, which is a element. required of the children’s loss trial, jury awarded disagreed, trial court and after The $3,017,500 punitive Appellants compensatory damages. prior Appeals, appeal Special noted an Court court, a writ of certiorari on any issued proceedings Shannon, initiative, our Md. own Khalifa (2007), following issues: address it Did trial court commit reversible error when I. motion to dismiss Count defendant-appellants’ denied *4 interference recognizing the tort of Complaint by ofOne rights and visitation of children? custody with it error when Did the trial court commit reversible II. motion defendant-appellants’ to dismiss Count denied tort civil Complaint by recognizing Two conspiracy?[1] custody
1. that tort of interference with Because we hold recognized rights Matyland, not reach the need visitations
HI error III. Did the trial court commit reversible when it defendant-appellants’ trial, for a new denied motion remittur, punitive damages because the awarded and/or by the there jury grossly were excessive and was no evi- on the of defendant-appellants’ ability dence record to pay? shall We hold that the trial court did not err in denying motion I Appellants’ relating to dismiss Count to interference custody rights and visitation we have because heretofore recognized the requiring tort without the loss of services of child to pled. also shall hold the trial We court did err when denying Appellants’ post-trial motions regarding damages.
I. Facts Michael Shannon initiated the suit against instant civil his ex-wife, Shannon, mother, Nermeen Khalifa her Afaf Nassar Khalifa, father, Khalifa, her Mohammed Osama and her older sister, Khalifa, Dahlia in March of 2004. The Complaint I, contained four counts: Count Interference with Custody II, Children; and Visitation Rights of Count Civil Conspiracy; III, Children; IV, Society Count Loss of Count False Imprisonment, allegations: with the following factual
8. Mr. Shannon married Defendant Nermeen Khalifa Shannon on March 1996. Adam
9. Osama February Shannon born on 1997. 10. Jason Osama Kalifa January [sic] was born on 2001. 11. Mr. Shannon and defendant Nermmen Khalifa Shan- separated non in January 2000. this February 2001 Court a consent entered order granted Adam; custody Mr. Shannon and Nermeen
custody of Jason.
13. Each parent also had rights visitation with their non- custodial child. case, question. Lloyd Corp.,
second A recent v. General Motors 108, 154, (2007), discussed elements of the tort of conspiracy. civil *5 Afaf Nassar Khalifa August Defendant 14. On with stayed and Egypt D.C. from Washington, to flew in her apartment. Shannon Nermeen boys visit a cousin that both could agreed Shannon 15. Mr. Defendants, Nermeen Khalifa York with Brooklyn, New Khalifa, were boys as long and Afaf Nassar Shannon 26, 2001. Sunday night, August to him returned to Maryland. not returned boys The were 16. ar- calculatedly had and Defendants previously
17. The airplane Egypt. on an put boys ranged boys on an airplane did put The Defendants 18. seen his American sons has not and Mr. Shannon Egypt August 2001. since to Ma- Defendant, Afaf Nassar Khalifa was extradited
19. ryland. a ten Defendant, Khalifa sentenced to Afaf Nassar was
20. to a That later revised sentence was year prison term. sentence. year three are and children kidnapping [sic] The abductions
21. ongoing. was Mr. Shannon the time of the abductions.
23. At of Adam and visitation custody entitled to legally Jason. interfered, and continue intentionally The Defendants
24. custody custody [sic] Shannon’s and to interfere with Mr. by abducting Egypt the children to rights visitations and refusing to them. return and interfered, and intentionally continue The Defendants 25. custody rights and visitation with Mr. Shannon’s interfere to allow Mr. Shan- intentionally refusing by knowingly with his sons. any manner non to see communicate continuing ongoing the Defendants’ As a result of custody with Mr. Shannon’s intentional interference damages. has suffered rights, Mr. Shannon visitation
H3 Complaint Afaf with the Nassar Khalifa served and a sentence, while serving three-year writ summons after conspiracy had under *6 she been convicted abduction (1984, 9-305 1999 and amended Section 9- Repl.Vol.), Section (1984, Repl.Vol., Supp.) Family 2002 Law attorney Complaint Article.2 Her moved to dismiss the jurisdiction of of personal insufficiency lack and service of process, which the court denied.
After Khalifa attempts numerous serve Nermeen Shan non, the mail court ordered alternate service and by in The Cairo Khalifa, Times. Nermeen publication through attorney, same moved to for lack subsequently dismiss jurisdiction, personal insufficiency service of lack of process, subject matter failure jurisdiction, and to state claim upon granted, which relief can be which the trial court denied.3 The complaints against the father-in-law and sister-in-law were later dismissed.
The case went to trial in December 2006. At the close of argument, the court dismissed the false imprisonment and loss of society deliberating counts. After over the remaining custody counts of interference with rights visitation conspiracy special form, civil and completing a verdict the jury $17,500 costs; awarded attorney $500,000 Shannon fees and defendant; $900,000 each compensatory against punitive damages against $1,100,000 Afaf Nassar Khalifa and million in punitive damages against Nermeen Khalifa Shan- non. moved Appellants judgment for a notwithstanding the verdict, trial, remittur, a new and for arguing grossly exces- sive damages, all which the Circuit Court denied. Appel- appeal lants noted their the Court the Special Appeals, and we writ of prior issued a certiorari to any proceedings State, We affirmed her conviction in 2. Khalifa (2004). filed, We judgment note that no Answer was ever and no default however, requested ever Appellants, or entered. have not been ad- versely affected their failure to an Answer file because the case was tried on the merits. 647, 929 Khalifa, appellate intermediate court. Md.
A.2d at 889. Background
II. it the Circuit erred when contend that Court Appellants failure to Complaint to Dismiss denied their Motion granted, relief can be because state claim with the tort of interference recognize does Maryland if alternatively posit custody Appellants and visitation. custody the tort of interference Maryland recognizes erred when it refused to dismiss visitation, the lower court must a claim because complaint for failure to state maintain the cause a child’s services to plead prove case, action, and also present not occur which did if Court Comment d the Restate accepts contend that this *7 (Second) Torts, (1977),4which that states ment of Section creating necessary, not it will be the loss service element is of fur law, Appellants, apply retroactively. new which cannot damage ther, jury’s punitive the award contend excessive, “placed no evidence whatsoever because Shannon $900,000 and pay [Appellants’] ability of to on record $1,100,000 punitive damages, respectively;” because $5,000] maximum “far exceeded punitive damage [the award Article Maryland Family Law monetary imposed by fine conduct;” damage punitive and because the same in the with other awards punitive award is not commensurate State.5 Torts, d, (Second)
4. Section Comment states: Restatement of Section, Necessity d. loss Under the rule stated in this service. of of impairment ability perform to service is not loss of service or necessary temporary element of a cause of action. The absence young perform of a or the abduction child who is too to service who hopeless as well abduction a child invalid is actionable as the deprivation parent. actually renders service to the The to society injury an which the redresses. of the child is itself law brief Although Appellants of evidence in their discuss bifurcation award, challenging punitive we shall not when the excessiveness question brief. address it was not included as a in their it because
H5 Shannon arguments. counters each of these He contends Maryland the tort of with recognizes custody interference services, visitation rights, and and that loss of as referred to in Restatement, not necessary has been included as a ele- ment the tort our jurisprudence. respect under With damages, argues punitive damages Shannon that the award is excessive it is only great compen- because twice as as the award, satory it is commensurate with the heinousness of conduct, it is Appellants’ inapposite compare a criminal fine, punishment where the primary imprisonment, puni- clear, also damages. provided tive Shannon counters that he convincing and uncontroverted evidence of Khalifa’s sub- stantial wealth.
III. Discussion A. Interference with Parent-Child Relations This case issues presents regarding whether the tort of interference with custody rights exists, and visitation parent, whether a legal custody who has both and visitation rights under court order the time of the abduction and children, harboring of minor has plead prove that he or has she suffered an economic loss as a result the abduction harboring. stated, As have viability legal “[t]he of a clearly which, cause action is a question of law all ” law, questions of this Court shall review novo. Wholey de Roebuck, 38, 48, (2002). Sears A.2d “ case, other, the present as in any when ‘consid *8 ering the legal sufficiency of complaint allege [a] to a cause of interference, tortious we must assume the truth of all relevant and material facts that pleaded are well and all inferences which can be reasonably drawn those plead ” ings.’ Lloyd 108, 121, v. Motors Corp., General 397 Md. 916 257, (2007) (alteration 264 A.2d in original); v. Sharrow State Co., 768, Farm Mut. 754, Auto. Ins. 306 511 492, Md. A.2d (1986). 499-500 conclusory “Mere that charges are not factual allegations may 121, be considered.” 397 Md. Lloyd, at 264-65, 916 A.2d at citing Morris v. Osmose Wood Preserving, 116 Almaraz, (1995); Faya v. 519, 531, 624, 667 A.2d 631
340 Md.
(1993). “Moreover,
435, 443,
327,
620 A.2d
331
alleged
claims
petitioner
a
has
determining whether
...
is
difference
granted,
big
relief
a
‘[t]here
which
can be
the
necessary
prove
that
is
[commission
between
which
merely to
commis-
necessary
allege
[its
and that which
tort]
and,
issue,
does not
sion],’
is the
the court’s decision
when that
claims;
merely
of the
it
determines
on the merits
pass
Lloyd,
121-
Md. at
right
bring
action.”
397
plaintiff’s
Sharrow,
(alterations
22,
original), quoting
265
at
“Furthermore,
770,
the court
Id., 1 American and quoting (2d 1896), finally:6 ed. receive, or clandestinely torts, is to of to harbor
“In the law soof purpose for the person [legal] authority, without [legal] him, having right that another concealing or, thereof; ... deprived shall be custody persons of such sense, improper- of reception persons it technical a less ly.” English (alteration 15 American original), quoting
Id. ed.1900). (2d iterating the After of Law Encyclopedia was abduction, the evidence we determined rule for harboring: elements of abduction to meet the insufficient as it not an element of abduction Now, in all this there is part cited an earlier defined the authorities has been used. There there was no force Confessedly opinion. this there is no open no violence and no fraud. There was was kind. any was persuasion to indicate that there evidence any what case has long beyond distance going It would be in detail given we have heretofore say held to that the facts charge of or either of them the fasten the defendants the declaration And as to the second count of abduction. whatever to show that Matilda any there is evidence Law, Encyclopedia section English in the 6. The American and Baumgartner, included the subsequent to that cited the court following: Rule.—A Rights of Child—1. of Parents—General IV. Abduction knowingly right against every person who father has a of actions subsisting wittingly interrupts between himself and his the relation him, by enticing abducting away from or such child child harboring left the father’s house. the child after he has gist abduction of a Gist of the Action—The of the action for the service, but the loss to the child would seem to be not the loss child, though society authorities the comfort and harmony upon question. are not in received clandestinely for the purpose concealing her from the plaintiff nor is there anything indicate that her *10 reception by the defendants in any sense improper. conclude, then, We from this review of the evidence in the record that the court entirely below was in right declining permit this go jury. case to to the As we find no error any of its rulings judgment which was rendered favor of the defendants will be affirmed with costs. 516,
Id. at A. 60 at 604. so, By doing held a cause of action was viable against one who abducted a child from a custodian har- bored her. Clearly, the definitions of the torts and our acknowledgment of their existence were “pivotal” and neces- sary premises upon based, our ultimate conclusion was thus, were holdings the case. See Black’s Law Dictio- (8th 2004) (A nary 749 holding ed. is a “court’s determination of a matter pivotal of law to its decision” or a on “ruling trial.”). evidence or question presented other See also Howell, (1913) Howell v. 162 N.C. 78 S.E. 224 (Baumgartner “held that if the kept child was in defendant’s lie”). custody a clandestine manner an action would Our acknowledgment the torts of abduction and of har- boring furthermore, Baumgartner, was consistent with authority many states, substantial of our sister who also colonies, were original American facing the same question. what to be the appears earliest known and frequently most abduction, cited American case on the South Carolina Court of Lockhart, (2 Brev.) Law in Kirkpatrick (1809), 4 S.C.L. although primarily concerned with whether it was appropriate plead abduction in trespass vi et armis or in trespass on the case, case, relied on primarily English decided Dennis, Barham v. Eng. Rep. and held that a father could sustain an only heir, abduction action not for his son and but for the any abduction of one of his children: decided,
It has been
that a father may maintain an
action
armis,
house,
vi et
trespass
entering
his
assaulting his
daughter,
child,
and getting her with
per quod,
Wils.
daughter,
debauching his
So,
the case lies for
action on
an
amisit,
age
though she be above
servitium
per quod
2 D.
proved.
of service are
where acts
years,
twenty-one
to lie where
always
It was
held
seq.
166 and
and E.
are
though no acts
service
twenty-one,
daughter is under
evidence,
what
4, 5;
besides
E.
and other
2 D. and
proved,
119. 8 D.
service,
R.
Esp.
is admissible.
to loss of
applies
true
cases,
exhibit the
mention these
E. 534.
I
kinds of actions....
foundation of these
service, for a
the loss of
of action cannot be
ground
The true
tender,
so
or of a constitution
age
of an
so
may
child
The
any service.
delicate,
rendering
incapable
as to be
outrage,
deprivation;
ground
true
child....
in the loss of his
the father sustains
*11
injury
Howell,
later,
Supreme
the
Court
78 S.E. at
Years
Carolina,
remarkably
facts
similar
presented
North
when
In
case,
of abduction.
recognized
also
the tort
to the instant
Howell,
prior
a contract
and mother entered into
a father
remain in the
divorce,
their
would
daughter
under which
six,
the father
age
until the
at which time
custody
mother’s
the child attained
Shortly
the custodian.
before
would become
child,
six,
abducted the
partner
the mother and her
age
the
trial
reversing
for
the
damages.
and the father sued
claim,
Supreme
the
dismissal for failure
state
court’s
length the
discussed at considerable
Court of North Carolina
law,
common
English
of abduction
history of the tort
Barham,
and
and held that the torts of abduction
including
the
bring
a father could
recognized
were
and that
harboring
any
of his children:
cause of action
law,
not an offense.
abduction of a child was
At the common
Blackstone,
Rice,
But
3 Com.
Based on the New York Court of Appeals concluded that the cause of action for harboring abduction and existed irre- spective loss services: any authority subject the absence of New York abduction and ... are harboring] disposed
[of to hold broadly, Carolina, as have courts of North and South actions for the abduction of immature children from the custodians, their custody parents, lawful or foster par- ents, no loss of service need be alleged proven; that for done, injury recovery may direct a direct be had without resort to the fiction that a loss of service has been occa- sioned.
Id. 658. case, Murphy v. I.S.K.Con. New Eng In a more recent
land, Inc.,
(1991),
409 Mass.
“The
law
traditionally recognized
common
has
a parent’s
interest in freedom from tortious conduct harming his rela-
child,”
tionship with his
and the parent “may
compensat-
ed therefor when there is interference with the normal
parent-child
The tortious
relationship.”
conduct referred to
previous
abduction,
[in
Massachusetts
includes the
cases]
enticement, and
harboring
secreting of minor children
parents,
words,
from their
or in other
the intentional inter-
ference with parental interests or
The
rights.
elements of
these causes of action are well established. Abduction is
physical
of a minor
taking
child from the
having
recognized
Kenney
We
the common law tort action of enticement in
Co.,
(1905),
Baltimore and Ohio Railroad
Id. at 352 harboring and have been total, of abduction the torts American original the other eight least of recognized 375, Barnett, 61 See, Ga.App. 4 S.E. v. e.g., colonies. Selman (1908) in loco can 501, standing parentis that one (holding 502 and damages for the abduction punitive and general seek child); 124 469 Engel, Plante v. N.H. harboring of her (Sec (1983) the Restatement (referencing A.2d 1301-02 ond) of Torts, through common law torts Section Holland, v. 27 N.J.L. harboring); Magee and abduction could recover for the (holding that a father (N.J.Sup.Ct.1858) child); the abduction of his Moritz emotional harm caused (Pa.1838) Garnhart, standing that one (holding Watts maintain an action for abduction parentis may in loco from offspring). glean What we daughter’s illegitimate his cases, discussing those cases particular these law, the torts of abduction English common that, there prior harboring England existed fore, common law under part them as of our adopted Rights, which states Maryland Article Declaration of V are enti Maryland that “the Inhabitants of pertinent part ... to the England according to the Law of tled Common Law, English and to the benefit of the statutes course of that July, seventeen hundred and day as existed on the Fourth seventy-six.”
Nevertheless,
this Court was not called
to. ad
whether abduction and
could
the basis of a
harboring
dress
be
with parent-child
cause of action for interference
relations
(1986),
until
Buchberger,
Hixon v.
In responding question posed to the to this Court Judge Rodowsky, Court, Lawrence F. writing for this ana- lyzed the various causes of action that impli- could have been the factual cated averments and concluded that Hixon’s allegations were insufficient to sustain a cause action for assault, battery or the intentional infliction of emotional dis- tress:
While Hixon’s
is that
conduct is a
point
Buchberger’s
tort
lie,
money damages
for which
will
Hixon does not allege
battery.
that the interference constituted an assault or a
The
not undertake to
complaint does
describe conduct
“
character,
outrageous
degree,
is
‘so
and so extreme
beyond
decency,
as to
all
bounds of
and to
go
possible
atrocious,
regarded
utterly
intolerable
a civilized
”
Jones,
560, 567,
community,’ Harris v.
281 Md.
(1977)
(Second)
611,
§
Restatement
46
(quoting
Torts
(1965)),
comment d
and Hixon does not
that Buchber-
argue
an
ger committed
intentional infliction of emotional distress.
77,
Judge Rodowsky immediately
Id. at
at 609.
then
A.2d
involving
that
with the
opined
decisions
interference
“[o]ur
relationship
parent
between
and child do not assist Hixon’s
recognized
that
were
position,”
abduction
enticement
precursor
parent-
causes
action for interference with
609,
Kenney
child relations.
Id. at
507 A.2d at
v.
citing
Co.,
490, 61
Baltimore and
Railroad
A. 581
Ohio
(suit
(1905)
dismissed for
evidence of enticement
insufficient
service),
Baumgartner,
or
60 A.
Md.
and Loomis
(Md.1894)
Deets,
(insufficient
v.
[0]ne does not con sent, abducts or otherwise minor compels induces a child to leave a parent legally custody entitled to its or not to return him, to the after it been subject has left liability to the parent.
Id. at
A.2d
He continued the discussion
primary
with citation to the
relied,
cases
which Hixon
being
one
United
Ruffalo
States,
(W.D.Mo.1984),
for the intentional
distress
York to
with
Virginia
child’s mother moved
New
child, did not
whereabouts
the father
discover
child’s
E.B.,
L.S.J. v.
672 S.W.2d 937
(Ky.Ct.
four
years;
for over
permitting a non-custodial mother to counterclaim
App.1984),
when
child’s foster
for tortious interference
a
parental
an action
terminate
mother’s
parents brought
agreement
with the
parent’s
violation of
foster
rights
Lis,
Bartanus v.
Pa.Super.
governing
agency;
state
(1984),
inflic-
damages for intentional
allowing
B. Loss of Services Whether a parent allege must economic loss of the child’s services to maintain an action for the interference with Trabbic, 51, 65, Lapides Md.App. (2000), similarly, Special Appeals substantially the Court of relied on Hixon, and held that engaged mere assertions that a defendant in a designed course of daughter conduct to win the affections of his parental authority his undermine were insufficient to sustain the cause rights custody intentional interference with and visitation primarily parent physically because deprived must be of the child. In holding, so appellate distinguished intermediate court Section 700 (Second) Torts, of the Restatement from Section which states allegations of alienation of affection are insufficient to sustain a 58-59, cause of action. Id. at A.2d 1117-18. custody visita when the has
parent-child relations *18 at time the was the children the suit rights regarding tion this Although we address. brought is the next issue that impression Hixon have the may given discussion in Court’s the mandatory a element of of economic services was loss abduction, analysis a focused reveals substantive tort of itself, the never been an element of tort loss services has rather, requirements law pleading arose from common but least until 1870.9 Maryland, the latter at England, force in and fact, than a cause of form rather When pleading the within narrow constructs alleged action had to be Paul & James pleadings forms. See Mark Sandler predefined Archibald, at Pleading Maryland, of Action K. Causes (3d ed.2004), Fisher, Alan H. Essentials quoting xx Prologue (2d ed.1922), in An quoting turn Pleading of Maryland (“[W]hen was at special pleading Stephen, drew’s Section was that all should be stated pleadings its the rule height, forms.”). In instance to and according approved ancient law, a parent-child with relations common of interference seduction, to economic seeking damages redress their enticement,' had to cause plead or abduction a child subcategories: two tres trespass, action in which contained case, “case”; (literally trespass vi et armis pass on the or arms”), Poe, in 1 or simply “trespass.” “with force and Law, Section and Practice Courts of Common Pleading Legislature "simplification Maryland enacted stat- 9. In part: ute" said in which follow, sufficient; pleadings which shall be The forms used, may may with such modifications those and the like forms be nothing necessary herein be to meet the facts of the case: but depart irregular or to from the shall render it erroneous contained forms, long expressed so as substance is without letter of such prolixity. Laws, Chap. precursor Assembly Chapter the General enacted 2-303(b), closely following provision, Maryland Rule to add the which Maryland approximates current law: plain neces- Any declaration which statement facts contains sufficient, any plea sary ground of shall be to constitute a necessary legal reference defense shall sufficient without form form. mere (5th ed.1925),10 at 115-16 defined and distinguished case trespass:
Trespass injury lies to recover for an damages committed force, law, with either actual or implied by injury where the immediate, is direct and and where it is committed either upon person or plaintiff, his tangible Case, corporeal property, personal. whether real or on hand, other damages lies to recover for any wrong or cause of complaint covenant, or assumpsit will trespass definition, not apply. adopt Or to sharply another more contrasting it trespass, it lies generally to recover force, torts committed with actual or, implied; force, if committed with the injury where is not or, but consequential; immediate where the matter effected *19 is tangible.... not An injury is considered immediate where itself, it is the complained occasioned act of and not a merely by consequence of that act. In other it all cases is consequential.
(footnote omitted) (emphasis original).
When a cause of action for parent-child interference with case, on relations was the the basis for the or more parent’s, specifically, the lie recovery per quod father’s servitium ami- right sisit or in the trespass of a master in injury to sue for to therefore, his servant. Damages, such per quod action were based on the injury to the master consequent from the injury servant, to the and a and plea proof of loss the of servant’s thereby required. services was See Mercer v. 21, (Md.1820). 5 H. Walmsley, & J. 27 generally See W. Blake & Odgers Odgers, Walter Blake The Common of Law (2d ed.1920). England 561-64
An in trespass, hand, action on the other premised was on a direct to injury the father. A cause of action alleging abduc- therefore, tion trespass, allegations included that the father was directly wronged by the abduction because he de- was recently This Court has cited as Poe authoritative most in Hanna v. LLC, 650, 4, Acquisitions, ARE 661 n. 899 n. (2007). child, society of the which lawful of the comfort and
prived this expect enjoy. Because right he had the custodian direct, in trespass father the action pursuing was action services, be of and he could prove loss required was emotional. pecuniary both compensated damages other Brev.) (“The (2 ground true 4 8.C.L. at 279 Kirkpatrick, the father injury outrage, deprivation; is the child; his his the insult offered to in the loss of sustains must suffer in the agony he feelings; heart-rendering loss of hopes, irreparable his and the dearest destruction comfort, may solace of his society, only declining age.”). authority is a ad-
Although Maryland there dearth when an ab- parent-child relations dressing interference Court has brought trespass, this decided duction action brought cases the father either has when plethora amisit, servitum per quod action on the case interference his when damages daughter, for the seduction of seeking damages flowing wrong- sought pecuniary father In cases when a employer. an ful enticement the son daughter, of his an action for the seduction brought father per case pled quad the action be on the required that explicitly amisit, right consequen- stating that the father’s servitum right daugh- his solely upon legal rested tial Taylor, A. Lamb v. Md. ter’s lost services. See (1887) required (noting 761-62 that loss services is on the of action based right action because the seduction *20 father, as by plaintiff, the not as but loss of service sustained master, daughter of of consequence the seduction his Greenwood, defendant); Md. v. 28 servant the Greenwood (1868) in an on case that a master- 369, (holding the 373 and that loss of services is the relationship servant must exist action); 5 Donnelly, the cause of Keller v. gist of seduction (1853) 211, maintain the (holding right 214 the to seduc- Md. per the amisit and that quod tion action is on case servitum exist relationship master and servant must either of “[t]he is, party rendering the seduced is service actually; that where is, ... that where the plaintiff constructively; to the or
131
legal right to demand
the services of
plaintiff has a
and have
Mercer,
seduction.”);
at
time of the
5 H.
party
seduced
the
brought
& J.
26
the action be
on the
(requiring
case
of
stating
loss
services to be
but
that the law
pled,
implies
relationship
living
master-servant
the father
with the
will
daughter
“any
and that therefore
service
be suffi-
slight
servant”).
to
...
she
cient
raise the inference
that
was his
When, similarly,
brought
a father
for
an action
the entice
employment
another,
of
son
ment
his
into
of
we also
element,
held that
explicitly
loss
services was
requisite
alleged
economic,
either
damages
purely
because
were
Loomis,
service,
A.
(recognizing
at 613
but
loss
dismiss
ing
pecuniary damages
father’s action
primarily
for
because
the father
originally
employment
consented
the son’s
employer
did not harbor the son
he did
force
because
not
stay),
the son to
or
the harm the
merely
because
father was
consequent
Kenney,
493,
to the death of the son.
11. The employ- torts economic enticement into seduction, abduction, opposed ment and brought must be on the shown, case loss therefore of services must be is consistent jurisprudence original of other E.g. Caughey colonial states. v. Smith, (1872) ("[T]o 47 N.Y. maintain an action for entice- appear ... ment it must that the child ... was at the time in the actual master.”); Eisenlerd, service of Lipe v. 32 N.Y. (1865) (requiring relationship master-servant and loss of services action); Ashley, (1850) seduction 60 Mass. 251-52 Butterfield *21 132 determine opportunity had the we have not
Although trespass lie in before the action would an abduction whether in were abolished requirements pleading arcane common law is based type where the of action pleading, of fact-based favor states, of our sister other sought,12 numerous on remedies an colonies, presented have with such been original American in law support found the common strong and have opportunity in brought trespass. to be an abduction action permitting Law, in case, Court of early the South Carolina very In a Brev.) (2 276, analyzed the English S.C.L. Kirkpatrick, bring could an action and held that father common law any Kirkpat of his children. the abduction of trespass for rick, trespass for the abduction an action in brought a father asserted The defendant his who was minor. daughter, brought could not of action for abduction be that the cause only in the of the father’s son trespass, except instance dismiss, plaintiffs that the action arguing and moved to heir “on case” and that loss services brought must be the abductor’s contentions rejecting Id. at 277. In required. brought trespass, to be the cause of action permitting at common summarized the debate the South Carolina Court law: doubt, former- have a matter of some seems to been
[There] Glanville, Eliz. as 770----Mr. Justice ly, appears Cro. that action was judges, the other held an opposition to maintainable, has all his an interest because education; remedy and that the provide children to their heir eloignment only. to be confined ought not settled; and question was ever appear It that does brought on the case (requiring loss of services in an enticement against employer). a father a son’s recently on the abandonment of form-based 12. We have commented 669, 696-97, Brycke, Brycke pleading Ver v. Ver Jenkins, 21, 27-28, (2004). Md. See Scott v. 773-74 also (1997) (noting “Maryland that abandoned formali- A.2d long Maryland pleading ago” Rule 2- law ties common 303(b) only pleading statements "[a] shall contain such establishes may necessary pleader's to relief or fact to show the entitlement defense”). ground of *22 there is reason to believe judges, the other who differed Glanville, hesitated, doubts, and entertained and there- fore deciding question, declined the without further consid- judicious Blackstone, eration. The correct and Sir Wm. opinion Glanville, seems to the adopt by held says, and “the remedy ward, is of by writ of ravishment or action of ” armis, trespass abducto, vi filio, filia, et de vel rapto, vel Brevium, 90, and refers to Fitzherbert’s Natura for the form of Wooddeson, the writ. That lawyer, able Mr. in his Lectures, 451, 2, vol. p. says, “a father cannot sue an assault battery, son, and committed on his but the son only plaintiff. must be the But if the father can allege, and prove, servant, that his son was also his and that reason of outrage profits labor, the he lost the of his ... the action would manner,” be maintainable. in he, And like says “it just, seems that a father might sue for the abduction any children, heir, of his as well the the suggestion, proof, thereof, or, indeed, and that means ... without that harsher allegation, it is but that might reasonable he action, bring such in respect of the comfort delight and he them, in has his anxiety loss, for their and his interest education; their which hardly considerations could be rec- ompensed by decided, pecuniary It has damages.” been may that a father armis, maintain an of trespass action vi et entering house, assaulting his daughter, his and getting So, her "withchild.... 3 Wils. 18. an on action the case ... held to lie always where daughter the is under twenty- one, though no acts service proved, 4, 5; are E. D. and evidence, and other besides applies service, what to loss of Esp. admissible. 3 R. 119. 8 D. E. 534.
Id. at 278 (emphasis original). Accordingly, the South Carolina Court concluded that a father could recover mone- tary trespass solely compensate him for the loss, emotional irrespective performed whether the child any actual services: ground
The true of action service, cannot be the loss for a may age tender, child be of an so or of constitution so delicate, as to be incapable of rendering any service. The deprivation; outrage, of action is ground
true child; insult in the loss of his the father sustains injury he must heart-rendering agony feelings; offered to his hopes, and the his dearest destruction of suffer comfort, may be society, loss of irreparable declining age. of his only solace Id. at 169 N.E. at the Court
Further, Page, Pickle law an that at common concluded New York also Appeals of trespass could be maintained for abduction In so conclud- not a element. prerequisite services was loss of English in older vigorous debate described ing, Court *23 bring an action right to abduction over whether cases it heir or whether the first-born was limited to trespass children: to the father’s other extended of a child was for the abduction trespass An child father where the abducted by a maintainable originally Den- Barham v. heir and not otherwise. the son and was 770____Later it that an action nis, 2 was held Eliz. Cro. per quod servitium by a father was maintainable trespass service, other him enough old do where a child amisit any For abduction of heir, was abdueted. than Jefferies, Cro. Gray did not lie. v. child the action other Hollander, 4 & 660. In the latter 55; v. B. C. Eliz. Hall a taking away “It in cases of it is clear that case was said: heir, a no action taking for son daughter, except son or Jefferies, Gray is sustained.” lies, unless a loss of service Dennis, supra. Barham v. supra; heir, child, or of a not the that the abduction principle The service, for which the wrong rendering was capable not without remedy, not adopted civil was law furnished no Thus unqualified approval. nor has it received protest, strong dis- uttered a (supra) v. Dennis Glanville Barham every of his an interest in sent, the father hath saying: “For them; he them, provide and to to educate children them; it is reasonable by wherefore his comfort hath him, any that should take them from and to do him such an injury, remedy punish but that he should have his it.” Blackstone of the opinion the abduction of a child, heir, might action, other than a father maintain an wrong stating that such was “remediable writ armis, filio, trespass filia, ravishment or action of vi et de vel abducto; vel in the rapto same manner as the husband may it, have on account of the abduction of his wife.” Bl. Comm. noted, also, 140.... It is to be Sir Pollock, Frederick qualification, without makes the broad statement: “The common law provided a remedy by trespass writ of for the wife, servant, taking heir, actual of a away or and perhaps also;” younger child and follows the statement the fur- ther assertion that an action of trespass also lies for wrongs wife, done plaintiffs child, to a or regarded servant as a servant, whereby society of the former or the services of lost; the latter are the language pleading being per consortium, quod Pollock, or servitium amisit. The Law of Torts, p. 226. 476-478,
Id. at
It reproach if, would legal system our for the *24 arms, abduction of a child no ran remedy to its parent, although thrush,” “for parrot, a a popinjay, a and even “for dog” a an is ample remedy furnished their custodian for the loss possession. of their
Id. at 658. The Court then distinguished abduction actions from seduction or actions actions to damages recover stem- ming from the a physical injury child and determined that at common law loss of services required was not in abduction actions because injury was directly inflicted father and therefore was in trespass, conversely that loss of services was required seduction actions or in actions to recover economic damages stemming from physical injury
136 to the father injury those circumstances because under on the was injury the child thus consequent to the case: gravamen an undoubtedly true that
It of a is loss daughter for a the seduction brought by Fitch, 2 Dawes, 4 Cow. Clark v. 412; v. of service. Moran Prime, 79; v. 639; Hewitt 459, Wend. 20 Am. Dec. Wend. Wilcox, Decker, v. 577; 14 N.Y. Knight v. 44 Barb. Badgley Fritcher, Eisenlerd, v. Lawyer 229; v. Lipe 413; 32 N.Y. 700, 239, 267, Rep. 27 Am. St. 14 L.R.A. 29 N.E. N.Y. 521.
[*] [*] [*] resulting for of service It true that a loss is [also] damages ... neither wounded to a child physical injury parent. damages may be awarded punitive nor feelings Skinner, Denio, Hitchcock, Tidd v. 461; Whitney v. 247, 1145. 422, 122 3 A.L.R. N.Y. N.E. consequent is not damage where the
The rule is otherwise from a intermediately direct; it results not but where servant, child, wife, or as a injury person, to third physical ' itself, wrong case immediately from the but (Smith Goodman, 75 Ga. v. away of a servant enticement 475); v. Rep. 22 Am. Bixby Dunlap, 198; 56 N.H. Ewing, v. (Tyson 3 J.J. Marsh. away of a slave enticement with a 185); for criminal conversation as in an action [Ky.] (Mathies Mazet, 434); for the v. 30 A. 164 Pa. wife Williams, v. Williams affection alienation of a husband’s damages ... In all these cases 37 P. Colo. be awarded. punitive damages may feelings wounded a father brought by awarded in actions they may That v. Magee held in definitely of a child was for the abduction Holland, approval That was cited with supra. decision (Mass.) 118, the Heywood, 7 Allen Stowe 89 Mass. “In for forcible abduction chil court an action saying: done to dren, injury for the the father is entitled here, they were recoverable his hold feelings.” We *25 no judge error committed when trial instructed jury damages might that such considered award- ed it. 651,
Id. at Howell, 224, In at Supreme S.E. Court of North Carolina reversed the lower for court’s dismissal failure to state claim and held that had recognized abduction been common law and loss services was required: brought
The most usual cases which is this action have daughter been the abduction of a for marriage or authorities, purposes. immoral But the modern as have said, advanced, have and now the parent can recover dam- ages for the unlawful taking away or concealment of a minor child, and is not limited to cases which such child is heir son, or eldest nor cases where the abduction is for immoral nor purposes; damages are the limited to the out, fiction of “loss of services.” This pointed court Hood Sudderth, 215, 397, v. 111 N.C. 16 S.E. v. Willeford 402, Bailey, 928, 132 N.C. 43 S.E. that this is “an outworn fiction” even actions for seduction. The real ground of compensation action is expense for the and injury and “punitive wrong done him in his affections household,” and the destruction his as said in Scarlett v. Norwood, 459; Hancock, 115 N.C. 20 S.E. Abbott 268; Newell, S.E. N.C. Snider v. 132 N.C.
624,
The Court of Appeals
Georgia
very
reached a
similar
Selman,
There, Selman,
conclusion in
directly that, therefore, specific to eco- damages, opposed as general id. at 502. were recoverable. See damages, nomic requirements pleading which arcane more recent cases (Second) Torts, abandoned, of the Restatement have been cited, the courts have noted has been and Section Plante, outmoded, 469 A.2d both of services is requiring loss common law (N.H.1983), with the and inconsistent at 1301 571 N.E.2d Murphy, of the tort of abduction. understanding Allen) (1864) Nickerson, (9 Rice 91 Mass. citing at directly against tort committed (recognizing abduction in regaining for incurred awarding damages father and costs a showing of lost requiring of the child without possession the child from wrongfully when a defendant abducted services the father thereaf- away the child from and harbored school ter). par- to interference with abduction, the
Clearly
precursor
relations,
trespass
or on
brought
have been
ent-child
could
law, and loss
American common
English
early
at
and
the case
pled
when the action was
required
services was not
of
Nixon,
this in
when we acknowl-
trespass.
recognized
We
but
may
damages
an element of
that economic loss
be
edged
cause
in order to maintain the
required
pled
that it is
for this tort
action;
the rules
“[u]nder
of
we stated
(Second)
(1977), ‘loss of
of Torts
espoused
the Restatement
is not a
ability
perform
of
service
or impairment
service
”
“[ujnder
action,’
§
of
a cause
necessary element of
damages
recover
who suffers
tort can
parent
custodial
child,
resulting
society of the
for emotional distress
the loss of
enticement,
service,
and for
for loss
abduction or
regaining
treating
the child and in
expenses of
the reasonable
a result of the tortious
suffered
the child as
any harm
77-78,
we reflected
at
C. Visitation relating third this case tort The issue can parent-child bring interference with relations involves who action; the cause of Michael Shannon was the parent custodial of Adam but also the at visitation Jason the time of in 2001 throughout ongoing harboring.13 abduction A parent rights clearly with custodial can initiate a cause of parents-child interference with relations. See id. at 610; 508-09, Baumgartner, at 60 A. at *27 601; at Murphy, N.E.2d 352. The of question whether a visitation can for the sue tort and receive damages Hixon, necessarily was in addressed which the relevant question whether, before us was under the common law of (or a of Maryland, cause action exists to be ought recognized) money damages resulting from the intentional tortious interference aby non-custodial third-party the visitation Hixon, rights of a parent. before determining whether a plaintiff assert could a tort claim for interference with visita rights Maryland, tion we had occasion to Ruffalo, discuss F.Supp. at the primary upon case which Hixon relied. mother, In Ruffalo, a agreement who had rights visitation of day “possession” child, one weekend aof sued the government federal the Tort under Federal Claims Act for interference with parent-child relations when government the placed the child and father the Witness Protection Program because the father cooperated had with federal agents who City were investigating organization. Kansas crime The determine, Court was called to among other Ruffalo things, subject whether the government was to state law liability for interference with “visitation and communication” rights. Id. 708. at The court concluded the claim was cognizable: Subsequent to the time when the Egypt, children were taken to granted custody Michael was of Shannon Jason Shannon. law ... to be mandated state
Assuming rights visitation Program] into the Protection entry [Witness this means that legal of destroying pre-existing ... the effect has had may rights with visitation right. Intentional interference of to imputed government sponsor therefore be Program. Protection Witness government’s addressed the holding, so the court Id. After “encourag[e] be to imputation an would argument that such Id. rights.” of damage petty parental claims for infractions this courts could well restrict 712. The court noted that “state not that are ‘insubstantial of claim to situations type ” effect,’ went on state: duration but event, relating from court orders departures In any trifling the state courts already plague doubtless visitation cases, possibility truly petty damage contempt of a against recognition argue persuasively does not suits contrary, specialists there are to sue. right [On] as a damage law suits family potential who view conduct. useful deterrent lawless therefore, tort Court, held both that the Id. The Ruffalo recognized in Missouri interference with visitation interference was an severity alleged also that (“While damages. Id. at 711. only but aspect liability in a rights may be less severe case injury parental visitation, that is matter of involving usually what is called *28 liability.”) rather than degree logically that relates Hixon, part that of the Court’s accepted we Ruffalo as a rights interference with visitation ruling recognized that claim, rejected the conclusion cognizable but Court’s Ruffalo from court-ordered departures that the most trivial even of sustainable cause action: could create a visitation reasoning in accept portion not “that This Court does (or that, they might because deter which indicates Ruffalo deter) conduct, remedy, are a illegal damage suits desirable minor with visitations relatively even interferences ” rights. added). Hixon, at (emphasis at 612-13 Md. minor understanding, distinguished this interfer- Based on with from more enees visitation substantial ones and held that upon Hixon failed to a relief be granted state claim which can because the short of alleged interferences fell the more sub- interferences of in complained stantial other Ruffalo Hixon cases relied: apparent
It is review foregoing that interfer- short, distance, here alleged by ence falls a considerable many the more substantial interferences of the presented upon by belligerent cases relied Hixon. The words de- relatively scribed Hixon are a minor In- interference. deed, alleged the nature of the interference is so here minor it is recognize that doubtful whether most courts would it as a mounting up custody tortious interference with rights, damages, remediable were exchange the same verbal taken place have when a parent might custodial picking aup child at the end a visit a parent. with noncustodial added). Id. (emphasis A.2d at 612 Accordingly, by dismissing insufficient, complaint Hixon’s we determined Maryland that recognizes a cause for interference rights alleged visitation so as the long interference is not minor. Id.
Clearly, Complaint present in the alleges case major and substantial interference rights with visitation be cause Shannon stated he deprived has been of his right to 26, 2001, August visitation from present. sure, to the To be allegations harboring abduction and of Jason since 26, 2001, August precisely are type substantial interfer contemplated by court, therefore, ence Hixon. The trial did not err denying motion to In reaching dismiss. this conclusion, however, we emphasize our admonition Hixon allegations major less than or substantial interfer ence with rights visitation will suffice state cause of action. Damages
D. Appellants also challenge the trial court’s dismissal of *29 motions, their post-trial arguing jury’s that the punitive dam- 142 whether an award determining In award was excessive.
age recognized we have damages appropriate, punitive ... awards limiting punitive damages factors the size of “[t]he Inc., Caldor, 4, 47, law,” Md. Bowden v. 350 principles are (1998), ... 267, on matters of law A.2d 288 “decisions 710 Inc., Holding, v. Renbaum Custom are reviewed de novo.” 554, Slater, 43, (2005); v. 383 563 Davis Md. A.2d (2004) 599, 604, (interpretations of 861 A.2d 80-81 Md. Rules are reviewed de Maryland and the Maryland Code Co., 65, 72, novo); Ins. Md. Employees Nesbit Gov’t (2004) statutory Maryland (interpretations A.2d review). a de are conducted under novo and case law nine, non- damages light of punitive review generally We Judge El- exclusive, articulated John C. legal principles Bowden, at on this Court dridge, speaking behalf 27-41, describing at In these factors 710 A.2d 278-85. “ are not criteria that must be ‘that the factors explained but, rather, to in review- assist court guideposts established ” award,’ pertinent every ... that “not all are ing an damages awards.” Id. punitive court review of involving case addition, the nine at we stated that all-encompass- are “not intended to be exclusive principles “[ojther may applicable principles appropriately ing,” particular awards under judicial punitive review factors are Id. of the nine Bowden circumstances.” Seven (1) ability to instant review: the defendant’s relevant (2) statutorily imposed of the award to pay; relationship (3) fines; comparison the award criminal the amount of and, damage jurisdiction final punitive other awards (4) cases; gravity in somewhat particular, comparable (5) conduct; the award the deterrent value of the defendant’s (6) general public; and the respect the defendant both litigation expenses, damages, including whether compensatory (7) plaintiff, and whether reason- sufficiently compensate punitive relationship compensatory exists between able *30 damages.14 We will address first three factors individual do, ly, Appellants remaining collectively. factors we recognized Bowden the “amount of punitive damages disproportionate ‘should not be to ... defen- ” ability pay’ purpose dant’s to because punitive “[t]he damages bankrupt not to a impoverish is defendant.” Id. at A.2d at 278. In Darcars Springs, Motors Silver 249, 275-76, Inc. Borzym, 379 Md. 841 A.2d 843-44 (2004), however, explicated: we reasoning
Sound our supports plaintiff view that a has no obligation to establish a ability pay defendant’s to punitive damages. plaintiff a Compelling seeking punitive damages to a present evidence of defendant’s financial condition could, hand, require on one plaintiff a with limited wage financial resources to a complicated discovery cam- paign monetarily a against sated defendant. On other hand, it would plaintiff license the to conduct pre- extensive discovery trial of the finances a support defendant’s to may measure of never only be awarded. Not latter could the result in a severe invasion of the defendant’s privacy, but it could also cost the a unnecessarily defendant great money deal time to all of its financial compile information.
Moreover, placing
plaintiff
a burden on
to introduce evi-
dence of a defendant’s financial
will
condition
enhance the
a jury
risk that
will place undue
on
defen-
emphasis
occur,
dant’s wealth.
If that should
jury
become
may
more prone to use information of a wealthy defendant’s
justify
an
of punitive
finances
award
damages dispropor-
higher
tionately
gravity
than the
of the
wrong-
defendant’s
Bowden,
doing.
“merely
As
stated in
because a defen-
dant may be able to
pay
very
large
punitive
award
Caldor, Inc.,
4, 33-34,
14. The
two
other
factors from Bowden v.
(1998),
281-82
whether "evidence of other final and
punitive damages
against
satisfied
awards
same
defendant for the
considered; and,
same
cated,
separate
conduct” should be
impli-
if
torts are
they grew
whether
episode;
out
same occurrence or
are
implicated
present
in the
case.
jeopardizing
po-
the defendant’s financial
without
damages,
sition,
disproportionate
is
justify
does not
an award which
of the defendant’s conduct.” 350 Md.
the heinousness
Based on these ability pay present- of a defendant’s in which evidence does not bear a burden Consequently, plaintiff ed. defendant’s financial condition evidence present damages. of punitive of its support pursuit nevertheless, totaling that an award argue The Appellants, *31 $1,017,500 in compensato- $2,000,000 punitive damages in at there no evidence all cannot stand because ry damages asser- ability damages. of their to Their pay on this record tion, however, there is whatsoever in the record nothing that to determining ability pay for their “guidepost” a provide to uncontro- damages is rebuffed Michael Shannon’s punitive testimony direct examination: verted on different resi- ... Afaf Khalifa maintain Q Where does dences? Spanish days
A I for four at a beach house stayed in Al-Alemein on the Mediterranean coast. She marble They million have me it was valued at three dollars. told Alexandria, is also on the apartments [Egypt] which to the east. coast about 50 miles We Mediterranean They farm night. for one have 400-acre stayed there home, farmhouse that three-story a farm in Giza with a plantains vegetables other and it’s grows mangos worked. Zurich, also a chalet outside Switzerland. On
They have two It’s in way stopped days. to we there for Egypt Coor, a chalet there. And They south Zurich. own Marcos, California, they I’ve to home own San been So, I’ve Diego north of on the coast. been six just San they own. properties you personal knowledge to have
Q many your How cars seen at those residences? Al-Almein,
A At the one there were two Mercedes and complex. then four cars were kept Heliopolis likelihood Although damages bankrupt Appel- that the will consideration, lants require relevant we do not Shannon to prove do appellants pay require prove can nor we him properties that the referenced titled their were under names. testimony Shannon’s concerning uncontroverted the Khalifas’ $2,000,000 wealth jury’s is sufficient conclude that award disproportionate respect is neither nor excessive with ability the Khalifa’s to pay.
Appellants
argue
also
damages
that the
are excessive be
punitive damages
cause the
total 180
imposed
times
maxi
$5,000.
Bowden,
mum
30-31,
criminal fine of
Under some the maximum criminal fine for comparable conduct be given should not very weight much in reviewing punitive damages award for excessiveness. There many are serious criminal offenses chiefly aimed at individuals, entities, than corporate rather the princi- where pal imprisonment, sanction is and the monetary penalty is relatively small. 9-307(d)
Section Article, of the Law Family Code Maryland (1999, 2006 Repl.Vol.), person states that a convicted of child abduction guilty “is on felony subject conviction is to $5,000 a fine exceeding not imprisonment or exceeding not 3 years or both.” This crime chiefly is aimed at individuals and
146 sentence, rather than the prison severity three-year the $5,000 legislature’s principal is method fine the nominal from those commercial This crime is also distinct deterrence. Ellerin, aimed at a in where the fine is described crimes the reason for ringleader, principal where entity corporate fine where the monetary gain, in the conduct is engaging at the defendants least is extract from generally imposed activity. Be- they illegal profited amount 9-307(b) Family for under Section the fine called cause for commit- relationship purpose no to the Article bears Law individuals, and abduction, which is aimed at the crime of ting prison sen- three-year relation the fine is nominal tence, helpful determining appropriateness it is here. punitive damages Bowden, 31-33, at 350 at 710 A.2d citing Md.
Appellants, $1,100,000 in 280-81, damage punitive next assert Shannon, $900,000 Khalifa against Nermeen awarded are against Afaf Khalifa exces- damages awarded punitive awards: comparison punitive to other sive an judicially reviewing Another consideration appropriate compare the award punitive damages award jurisdiction, final awards in damages punitive other in somewhat cases. comparable with awards particularly America, Gore, See, supra, Inc. v. 701 North e.g., BMW of (“For the amount of guidance determining at So.2d 515 have looked to proper, that would be punitive cases”). also Mutual Insur comparable See Pacific Life 20-21, 111 at S.Ct. Haslip, supra, Co. v. U.S. ance judicial at 21 review “under (pointing 113 L.Ed.2d analysis” an “additional check on taking] comparative discretion”); Armstrong ... Edwards v. World jury’s (5th Cir.1990). 1151, 1154 Industries, Inc., 911 F.2d B. Evander & & Alexander Inc. v. Dixon Alexander Assoc., Inc., 720, 710-711 Md.App. denied, (1992), (1991), A.2d Chief cert. Md. *33 Appeals, vacating for the Judge Special Wilner Court award, large punitive damages stated: extremely an
147
record, we
believe that
On this
do not
million
$12.5
punitive
comports
Although
[the
award
with
we
law].
say
certainty
largest
cannot
it
complete
court,
Maryland
it
punitive
by
award rendered
is the
far,
largest,
of which
are aware. The
by
nearest
$7,500,000
Potomac Electric v.
amount
was
rendered
Smith,
591,
(1989),
Md.App.
79
5, 181 Moreover, in A.2d 333 most of these cases no *34 that awards were exces punitive was made the argument sive. (alterations following
Id. original). Although Appellants, Bowden, awards, none of damage regarding punitive cite cases harboring and of ongoing involve the abduction those cases minor from their father. children and has encountered similar circumstances jurisdiction
One $53,000,000 of in favor punitive damage award has affirmed father, his the of help of a when the children’s with mother defendants, friends, as who were also named siblings and Smith England. their children abducted and harbored Smith, We do (Tex.App.1986). 720 S.W.2d 590-91 $1,100,000 against awarded punitive damages believe that $900,000 in dam- punitive Khalifa nor the Nermeen Shannon against Afaf Khlalifa are excessive. ages awarded factors, the final four Bowden the We conclude that also conduct, the the deterrent value of of the defendant’s gravity general defendant and the respect award both damages, including litigation compensatory whether public, plaintiff, and whether sufficiently compensate expenses, pu- relationship compensatory exists between reasonable $1,100,000 damages, justify imposition nitive of First, $900,000 damages. evidence shows punitive In Appel- is heinous. Appellants activity particularly sons they were his Adam taking lants told Shannon that them thereaf- they York and that would return Jason to New ter; Egypt, young boys plane on a reality, they put that Appellants It is clear from record never to return. love knowingly deprived have a father consciously and time. period two children for an extended and comfort his furthermore, evidence, have Appellants no There is Bowden, Md. rectify taken the situation. any value of discussing A.2d at when the deterrent awards, taking of reme- noted that “a defendant’s punitive action, giving after the misconduct promptly dial or corrective obviously be a damages, award should punitive rise to the Rather, done Appellants quite factor.” have mitigating deprived day each Shannon passes, opposite, because We eight. now eleven and who are boys, contact with the children harboring of Shannon’s ongoing Appellants’ view factor, award is high punitive and a aggravating as an Egypt in similar conduct. engaging others from to deter appropriate of the children also indicates ongoing absence Evidence of the for the loss fully compensated never be to us that Shannon will hands that he has suffered at the society companionship of the Appellants. relation finally, bear a reasonable punitive damages,
The *35 In damages. Square Franklin compensatory to the ship Laubach, 615, 624, A.2d 697 318 Md. 569 Hospital $700,000 in (1990), we affirmed an award example, $300,000 in a ratio of damages, actual punitive damages $1,100,000 Here, punitive in jury 1. awarded exactly 2.33 to $500,000in Ner compensatory damages against damages and ratio, $900,000 in Shannon, 1 a 2.2 to meen Khalifa $500,000 in compensatory versus punitive damages Khalifa, than 2 to ratio. against Afaf a less factors, the punitive In of all of the we conclude that light nor damage disproportionate. award is neither excessive ANNE THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR JUDGMENT OF BE PAID AFFIRMED. TO COUNTY COSTS ARUNDEL BY APPELLANTS.
RAKER, J., Concurs.
RAKER, J., concurring: in I that this Court judgment
I concur because believe I do recognize a new cause of action tort. power has because I believe that this Court join majority opinion not the cause of action in tort for recognized has not heretofore finally by interference with relations as stated parent-child majority. view, In reading my
I the Court’s of Hixon. disagree a cause of action in tort as set forth recognized we did not (Second) Torts, Hixon, § In the Restatement this the belligerent by plain- Court observed that words described tiff were a minor relatively interference—indeed so minor that recognize we doubted whether most courts would it as amounting custody rights, to a tortious interference with by damages. remediable We held as follows: whether, or, we need not “Consequently decide this case so, if under what lie damage might circumstances rights. simply interference with visitation We hold that who, a parent parent’s ally committing any or that without tort presently recognized Maryland, speaks hostilely to the other that parent parent’s custody about exercise of rights thereby visitation does become liable dam- ages.” (1986). 72, 83,
Hixon v. Buchberger, A.2d (Second) quotation The Court Hixon’s of the Restatement Torts, § 700 does not stand for the that proposition fact, Court the tort as set out in that adopted section. Maryland prerequi- cases cited the Hixon court “state the the parent right sites tort to be that have the custody actual service have been rendered abduction, parent child to the which the lost due to the enticement, or harboring by the defendant.” Id. at A.2d at 609. *36 sum, if this Court chooses to a new cause of recognize so,
action, say we can do but we should that is what we are Otherwise, doing, why doing we are it. we should leave policy Assembly, particularly these decisions to the General an area that potentially far-reaching legal has social and consequences Legislature previously and where the has acted. See, Article, §§ 9-304 to 9-307 of the Law Md. e.g., Family (1984, Code 2006 Repl.Vol.).