*1 objection appeal is on waived when the reviewed is Dairyland Ins. made at time. Mut. first Wells v. 505, 518, N. 2d 274 Wis. 80 W. Co. did not in de- conclude that trial court err
We negli- clining to matter of find as a law Ratwik’s gence equaled jury’s exceeded that of The Barts. negligence disproportionate apportionment not is completely supported to warrant new trial required A not the in- the evidence. new trial justice. terests
By Judgments affirmed. Court. — Appellant, v. Local Wozniak, United Electrical, of Amer- Radio & Machine Workers (UE) others, Respondents. ica (Rule) under see. March 113. Submitted No. 251.51. 27, 1973. March Decided reported 369.) (Also in 205 *4 appellant For the on the the canse brief was submitted of Martin E. Love of Milwaukee. respondents
For the submitted cause on Ugent brief of Podell & of Milwaukee. J. Two issues are raised on this
Hanley, appeal. ordering 1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion plaintiff jury’s $1,000 to remit all but of total issues; . award or face a new trial on all and deny 2. Was it error for the trial court to defendants’ judgment motions for a standing and directed notwith- ? the verdict
Remittitur verdict. decision,
In its written the trial court reviewed the bearing question evidence in the record compensatory on the of both punitive damages: and right plaintiff, to the “As of the evidence under the compensatory damages, case, in this entitled to opinion is of the this court that there is to the evidence plaintiff effect the he that was humiliated felt neighbors, fact had his a leaflet from received relationship plaintiff the defendants. While the of the prior neighbors his with the remained after incident same, nevertheless, court is satisfied that the this receiving fendants neighbors of the leaflets from the de- give anxiety rise a condition did of mental part plaintiff. injury plaintiff of the on For compensation. entitled to reasonable must be borne mind that the the leaflet limited circularization neighbors. any to five The evidence does not indicate injury neigh- prior relationship to his serious with his reputation bors, or loss of economic . . loss. Taking into of the consideration all evidence as it bears compensatory upon damages, the item of is. the con- it opinion of sidered this court a reasonable $500.00 plaintiff’s compensatory damages, for the amount jury award is reduced to sum.” jury’s punitive $20,000 to the award As ages, the court stated:
730 the in- disproportionate to award is “Where the duty damages, the it punitive becomes purpose of
tended punitive excessive reduce such of the trial court to ages option give plaintiff the amount and to a reasonable having trial. a new accepting the same of defendants, ap- malice as extent of the of “The case, not so pears as to in severe from the evidence this $20,000.00. .” justify an award judge re made his own here, has Where, the trial as jury’s award determined a has view of the record and there a amount reduced to be excessive and has fixed giving trial on the issue for, plaintiff a new option take damages exercise his unless should he reasonable, this thought by the court to the amount only of dis finds an abuse where it court will reverse Farm, v. State Mut. Lucas the trial court. cretion 568, 571, 117 (1962), Ins. Wis. 2d Automobile Co. 17 trial court 2d The test for whether 660. N. W. finding particular as in sum its discretion abused has damages whether, the trial if amount of a reasonable sitting finder and had court had been as sole fact damages plaintiff’s amount, court such fixed finding. Boodry Byrne (1964), v. would still disturb 585, 126 2d 22 Wis. record, we find that a review of
After holding court abuse its discretion did not awarding $5,000 compensatory $20,000 remitting punitive and, thereafter, both was excessive each. to $500
Although presumes harm a normal conse- the law often, quence of libel because it is so subtle and indirect defy monetary provides specific proof, also it damages publication. from the which result libelous 173, Meister Dalton Wis. 2d plaintiff Here, provide was unable to N. W. 2d damages any specific proof which caused were Similarly, although of the leaflet. the leaflet circulation neighbors, five of his least sent several *6 prior reputa- plaintiff’s of them to fact that testified the high in- tion and in their than others minds was less they The trial that well. dicated didn’t know him that evidently re- these when it court considered factors damages. compensatory the verdict for duced Although jury the found that the had acted defendants damages punitive proportion malice, the with should damages compensatory they ate and “are with since punishment only,” for it relevant con assessed is maximum fine in the the Wisconsin Criminal sider governing Meke v. Nicol Code offenses. similar 654, 664, 2d 129. 56 Wis. The maximum 942.01, Stats., $1,000. fine for defamation under sec. point any are The defendants unable to errors which entitling they place them took to a new trial nor can indicating specific jury that the was show factors by passion prejudice. and motivated the contention It is that there been defendants has remitting no abuse discretion in court compensatory punitive verdict both and ages. think the defendants are We correct. and motions verdict.
Defendants’ before after appeal Defendants’ contention on their from denying of the trial court their order both motions judgment notwithstanding directed the ver- one which dict is was before court in same this their appeal from denial of earlier their motion for summary namely, judgment, upon that the leaflet which action was entire based true a matter of this upon argument contention law. Their rests “. . . many meanings,2 the term ‘scab’ has while it 2 Webster’s, Dictionary (2d ed.): New International scoundrel, Slang. Opprobrious dirty, paltry fellow; a. A “3. Trade-Unionism,. wages A workman works for b. who lower than, contrary to, prescribed by or under conditions those also, place trade-union; one who takes the aof workman aon . strike. . employed
here dispute in the context of a labor must be read in context.” Wozniak Local UE, supra, pages affirming denying
In action of the trial court in summary defendants’ motion for judgment, court this stated: “. . the function of the court to determine
the first published instance whether a communication defamatory in the capable form of libel or slander is of a meaning, [citations omitted] denying the trial “Thus court the motion for sum- mary judgment fulfilled function when it held neighbors plaintiff’s to the capable letters sent were *7 defamatory meaning.” Wozniak, supra, page aof 591. correctly Once the court has ruled that the al- legedly libelous “. capable . . communication is of an innocent mean ing defamatory as as a meaning, well it is then for the jury to determine whether capable communication defamatory meaning of a by was so understood re its cipient.” Corp. Martin v. Outboard (1962), Marine 15 452, 462, 113
Wis. 2d 2d N. W. In the Miglautsch case of Zillmer (1967), v. 35 691, 151 741, Wis. 2d N. W. 2d this court stated: Wagnalls, Dictionary Punk & English New Standard Lan- guage : belong “5. A workman join who does not to or will not or act labor-union; a place with one who takes striker; of a a strike-breaker; rat.” Webster’s, Collegiate Dictionary (5th ed.) : slang. dirty paltry “2. A fellow; a scoundrel. 3. workman A wages than, who works for lower contrary or under conditions to, prescribed by those also, the trade-union; one who takes the place aof striker.” Black’s, Dictionary (4th ed.): Law working “A man wages who works for lower than under contrary prescribed conditions to those a trade union; also place workingman one who takes the of a on a strike. . . .”
733 jury case be taken from the verdict should and a “[a] against party: directed a “ ‘ gives only “. . . when the to no evidence rise dis- pute material issues or when the evidence convincing permit reasonably clear un- impartial biased and minds to conclu- come but one ’ v. Joint (1964), sion.” Anderson School 24 Dist. Wis. (2d) 580, 583, (2d) 129 545, (2d) N. W. 130 N. W. 105, citing (1940), Smith v. Pabst 489, 288 212 Wis. 780, N. W. and Rusch (1933), Sentinel-News Co. 533, 530, Wis. N. W. 405. “Also: “ ought ‘A taking verdict to be directed con- if, into they appear sideration all facts and circumstances as evidence, there is but one inference or conclusion that can be reached a man.’ Milwaukee reasonable v. Bichel, ante, p. 66,150 (2d) N. W. 419.” judgment notwithstanding A motion for brings which the trial court also denied in case to bear the part essential same determination on the judge. a trial notwithstanding “A motion the verdict to a amounts
post-verdict motion for a is, directed verdict. . It sense, a demurrer to the evidence. the facts admits found but are contends as matter of law those facts though insufficient, admitted, to constitute a cause of action.” State Escobedo 85, Wis. 2d 91, 170 *8 Here the trial court that ruled it could not a matter of rule give law that the term “scab” could general meaning; one namely, rise to but an individual participate not who does choose to in a labor strike which has been think called. We this was a correct ruling. term
The “scab” must be in examined relation- its ship leaflet, to the whole and to determine whether potentially defamatory term the was understood its defamatory recipients in its . . the “. sense. surround- ing under which . . published circumstances was [it] v. Outboard Martin into consideration.”
must be taken page Corp., supra, Marine neigh- plaintiff’s to The leaflet which was distributed “Allen-Bradley the were of how workers bors talks labor de- .” of “unfair” forced . . because strike thought that them. with the made on follows mands negotiate has company “. . . the rather than settlement a line, running through picket try the decided to scabs jury the context, . . .” From this to break the strike . recipients communication could have that of the inferred though a could have understood an individual — join in a cause which “worker” himself —who not did long family in run would him and but benefit his “prolong it” who chose to was “scoundrel” instead a neighbors. jury That the who should shunned his from the have drawn an inference clear could testimony plaintiff’s neighbors, Werner, of Jane one through goes a “a man that who said “scab” was against picket employees line fellow to break his plant that onis strike.” question
The of whether the leaflet communicated recipients plaintiff the idea that a “scoundrel” its merely say, truth —that is to man chose who right participate not to in a strike which was his question properly do—was a which a matter for jury upset finding. court not will its 103.53, Stats., final contention that Defendants’ sec. concerning publication dispute in a labor facts type permits them to mail this of leaflet to a man’s neighbors they hopes subtly in will coerce into him joining a strike without merit. grant trial
The order court is modified toas damages. option a new as to issue of By the Court. —Order modified and, modified, af- firmed. (concurring).
Robert W. J. For reasons Hansen, dissenting opinion stated Dalton v. Meister *9 (1971), 173, Wis. 2d 184-197, 494, 188 N. W. 2d writer “punitive” would strike award ages, finding privately such additional fine or collected penalty particularly inappropriate type in this of action. Stueck, litem, another, Guardian ad Appellants, Asphalt Duc, Le Company, Wisconsin d/b/a another, Respondents. (Buie) No. Submitted under see. March 251.54 27, 1973. Decided March reported (Also 139.) in 205 N. 2dW.