Kneebinding, Inc., John Springer-Miller, Tina
Springer-Miller and ACL Investments, LLC v. Richard Howell, 2018 VT 101 [filed 10/5/2018]
In its August 2016 decision, the trial court concluded that Howell’s numerous internet posts stating that Kneebinding ski bindings were defective and dangerous were false and defamatory, In a subsequent opinion released in January 2017, the court found that Howell acted with “ill will and insult,” justifying “some reasonable level of punitive damages.”
But, before deciding on the specific amount of both general and punitive damages, the court directed the parties to submit still further memoranda. The court issued its final decision on defamation damages in March 2017.
The court explained that it had reconsidered its previous conclusion that this case merits punitive damages. Noting that there was no evidence, or even an implication, that Howell had any assets worthy of note, as well as his lack of malice against Kneebinding, the court concluded that punitive damages were not justified.
The calculation of punitive damages is,within the trial court’s discretion. See Pion v. Bean, 2003 VT 79, ¶ 44, 176 Vt. 1, 833 A.2d 1248 (noting that when evaluating punitive damage award, we defer to trial court because “[p]unitive damages by their nature cannot be precisely measured”).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying punitive damages. Its conclusion that most of Howell’s ire was directed at the Springer-Millers and not Kneebinding itself was supportable on the record, and, in any event, the court’s decision not to impose punitive damages in the absence of evidence about Howell’s finances is supported by our caselaw.
"We have stated that, in assessing punitive damages, the fact-finder must take into account the character and the standing of the party, the malice or wantonness of the party’s conduct, and the party’s financial status.” Pion, 2003 VT 79, ¶ 44.
Faced with no evidence of the latter factor, the trial court reasonably declined to impose punitive damages.
SCOVT Note
The Court does not discuss its precedent that proof of a defendant's actual means or wealth is not essential to the recovery of punitive damages. See Shahi v. Madden, 2008 VT 25, ¶ 11, 183 Vt. 320, 949 A.2d 1022.
The calculation of punitive damages is,within the trial court’s discretion. See Pion v. Bean, 2003 VT 79, ¶ 44, 176 Vt. 1, 833 A.2d 1248 (noting that when evaluating punitive damage award, we defer to trial court because “[p]unitive damages by their nature cannot be precisely measured”).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying punitive damages. Its conclusion that most of Howell’s ire was directed at the Springer-Millers and not Kneebinding itself was supportable on the record, and, in any event, the court’s decision not to impose punitive damages in the absence of evidence about Howell’s finances is supported by our caselaw.
"We have stated that, in assessing punitive damages, the fact-finder must take into account the character and the standing of the party, the malice or wantonness of the party’s conduct, and the party’s financial status.” Pion, 2003 VT 79, ¶ 44.
Faced with no evidence of the latter factor, the trial court reasonably declined to impose punitive damages.
SCOVT Note
The Court does not discuss its precedent that proof of a defendant's actual means or wealth is not essential to the recovery of punitive damages. See Shahi v. Madden, 2008 VT 25, ¶ 11, 183 Vt. 320, 949 A.2d 1022.
No comments:
Post a Comment