MAURER v CLAUSEN DISTRIBUTING CO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 95-124 IN THE SUPREMECOURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1996 DAVID MAURER, Plaintiff, Appellant, and Cross-Respondent, CLAUSEN DISTRIBUTING CO., a Montana and MICHAEL A. TUCKER, corporation, Defendants, Respondents, and Cross-Appellants. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District, In and for the County of Lewis and Clark, The Honorable Thomas C. Honzel, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Monte D. Beck and John J. Richardson, Beck Law Offices, Bozeman, Montana For Respondents: Keith Keller, Keller, Johnson & Gillespie, Submitted Reynolds, Drake, Helena, Montana on Briefs: Decided: I 'Clerk January February 4, 1996 8, 1996 Justice Charles This Court, E. Erdmann delivered is an appeal Lewis from an order and Clark County, award of damages against Tucker, affirm and giving of the First granting Clausen and a cross-appeal evidence the opinion Judicial a new trial Distributing District on the jury's Co. and Michael from the District of jury of the Court. A. Court's of We reverse instructions. exclusion in part and in part. We restate 1. issue the issues Did the District of punitive 2. issue Did other in ordering a new trial on the Court in ordering a new trial on the damages? of compensatory events Court err Did the District 3. as follows: the damages? District than err the Court accident err that in excluding evidence have lead to could of Maurer's depression? 4. issue Did the District of punitive work-related Court err in denying damages because evidence convictions for driving a new trial of Clausen's under the influence on the employees' (DUIs) was excluded? 5. Did the District instructions liability were for Court given punitive to err the in denying jury on a new trial Clausen's because vicarious damages? FACTS Michael a Helena Tucker was a salesperson beverage November 25, 1991, and bar Tucker supply for Clausen Distributing wholesaler was returning 2 from and distributor. his Co., On Townsend sales route when he ran into parked had on the been passenger to the influence by pled was percent. the accident testified two citations for and back essential to the family to ranch, introduce over front and a trial he drank Clausen punitive beers the evidence Clausen course alcohol policy as it Tucker pain The District also to introduce accident, received 3 in his neck duties depressed, Clausen non-related prejudicial this had received became severely because of its had, until pertained performing and moved from Montana. attempted day in consuming him from Maurer of life. that accident. prevented of damages. policy Maurer suffered evidence Tucker Clausen's was aware that a ranch. and to award or six discretion to this the was held for five under an hour after Clausen felony Maurer which could have caused his depression established driver the while content did not amend this he alleged running driving liability of the accident, which of Townsend customers. DUIs prior As a result against in who when he was thrown Defendants to use their Clausen even though to Tucker, that his salespersons attempted a charge damages and determine working. quit a motorist was sitting His blood alcohol he was servicing permitted to for Tucker At trial, Maurer, car and was injured .17 liability compensatory while patrolman, guilty of alcohol. admitted his the David vehicle of the car. accident while the highway. seat of the patrol floor of a Montana Highway Patrol of stopped Tucker the side the rear and Tucker charges and disrupted Court did not allow effect. evidence that a DUI while no Clausen working. The District Court to the issue excluded of punitive At the proposal that a pattern Clausen Clausen and $75,000 filed a motion that the jury's for The jury liability of this $l,OOO,OOO in punitive in of which for pain awarded was for damages Tucker. Court in of established Maurer capacity. trial on the The District issue of cross-appeal rulings relevant the actual had requested loss requested of earnings concluded damages was excessive the District punitive Tucker Court of compensatory Maurer appeals Clausen a new trial course Although of life. earning compensatory to punish ordered did not award any damages for for concluded District $570,349 the jury award Clausen Court Maurer loss course against on damages. and suffering. of established issues punitive damages were based on passion the District of punitive ruled instruction. and the punitive Court would be given. damages against a new trial also was not relevant the District on vicarious Accordingly, the determination the it and exceeded the amount necessary and Tucker. $50,000 instructions, awards for and prejudice loss of jury awarded finding damages. to the giving jury $500,000 evidence, instruction objected The this that life, and $90,000 for by Maurer, or loss the of jury's and granted granting a new of a new trial and compensatory damages. District evidentiary Court's 4 of damages as well. Court's to a new trial. damages, Clausen on and and legal ISSUE 1 Did issue the District of punitive Court err Court vacated damages of $l,OOO,OOO against these Court awards ordered were district court's manifest abuse of Inc. decision Section to verdict of damages is excessive influence passion 286, 287-88, and grant v. and appears or punitive Tucker. concluded will not that reviewed in Motors, court when the jury's under required by the jury's verdict and Those the the wrong ; the profitability of the defendant's (iv) wrongdoing, if applicable; the amount of actual damages awarded by the (v) jury; (vi) the defendant's net worth; 5 the ยง 27-l- (7) (b). of the nature and reprehensibility wrongdoing; the extent of the defendant's wrongdoing; the intent of the defendant in committing any other circumstances iix)' ' increase or reduce, without wholly damages. may award include: (i) defendant's If:!, a 632. a district subsection a absent to have been given As that disturb Cochrane 895 P.2d 631, prejudice. forth set for against it Archie a new trial considered factors on the or deny a new trial MCA, provides Court factors Court Baxter 221(7) Cc), MCA, the District the because This grant award and $75,000 a new trial 25-ll-102(5), of a new trial jury's Clausen discretion. 271 Mont. a jury's the excessive. (1995), vacate ordering damages? The District The District in that may operate to defeating, punitive The court found 1993 and taxable court found Clausen had a net worth income of $31,662 that Tucker had been rehired on those that (average had no evidence by Clausen the court findings, at a yearly for of $944,534 1990 to 1993). of net worth salary but in The that he Based of $27,000. concluded: Although an award of punitive damages was proper this case, it appears that the award was the result passion or prejudice. Passion and prejudice can, course, be strong when drinking and driving result in The significant factor here, however, is accident. excessive amount of the award. in of of an the There was no evidence regarding Tucker's net worth. The award against him was almost three times his annual salary. While Tucker's conduct was certainly reprehenthe amount sible and should in no way be condoned, awarded exceeds the amount necessary to punish him. The amount awarded against Clausen Distributing The award must be exceeded the company's net worth. sufficient to get the company's attention, but in this award exceeds the amount necessary to case, the adequately punish this Defendant and to serve as an example to it and others. A review of the record assessed against Clausen Clausen's overall financial MCA, states that 'I [iln amount of punitive financial We note that retaining Clausen to within that its Actually, Clausen's when proceeding taxable the worth yearly damages compared 27-l-221(7) to to (a), determine the defendant's the financial must be considered." income yearly Clausen corporation. 6 punitive Section and net even though the excessive separate declared $4,600,000. profits manager testified not condition. condition, 1990 and 1993, $3,400,000 were that damages to be awarded, affairs, between the reveals retained of sales had $0 to $49,000 were between a policy of Clausen's general profits averaged between $850,000 $300,000 to $400,000 balance cost and up to thirty-five at this $550,000 and $800,000. consider the time policy of appreciation retaining company's Tucker's District worth, the of which noting v. Conklin Co., 151, 158, we stated Gurnsey, was no evidence for worth defendant to produce as Clausen's in a decrease of the that reasons, on the improperly by the not In that (1988), Tucker's 230 Mont. 42, is not required must support produce Tucker Tucker's we conclude of punitive that fact. Accordingly, could and so, the District that to not from there support Court damages against the District If punitive not gain an advantage worth award of punitive that damages. an award of net worth. net 751 P.2d to show proof evidence should of his issue 55, an award of punitive does not evidence the jury's a new trial to did damage award of $75,000, For these failed salary supports 751 P.2d at 158. in vacating between net a plaintiff net failing punitive as well was of Tucker's Inc. net worth the Court was no evidence concluded Gurnsey damages, Testimony is worth was also valued there an award of punitive defendant's historic damages in the amount of $75,000. Court support the resulted condition After District a defendant's ago. the District assets, Clausen's at their alone these kept income. financial Court. the warehouse profits, taxable assets years Nevertheless, Clausen expenditures. many of the company's when purchased that addition, in cash on hand for sheet valued presented In $l,OOO,OOO. erred Tucker. Court's order damages was a manifest a abuse of discretion, this and therefore, reverse the District Court on issue. ISSUE 2 Did issue the District Court of compensatory The issue verdict err Maurer asked the jury returned course requested $500,000 life by Maurer. award of of excessive passion on compensatory review the the court for abused its the jury's facts, of: 80 00 00 00 00 00 00 12,598 7,310 440 50,000 500,000 -O-O- 80 50 00 00 00 of five established Accordingly, award under discretion. a new trial See Baxter, 8 the ordered to 5 25-ll-102(5), to grant the concluded course the court for times the court to have been given decision item 12,598 20,000 440 65,520 90,000 35,642 2,241,761 of life was more than loss on a line a verdict $ that damages pursuant court's on the of: On these and appeared or prejudice. noted to return of life a verdict Court to the jury $ Past medical expenses Future medical expenses Out-of-pocket expenses Pain and suffering LOSS of established course Loss of earnings Loss of earning capacity The District a new trial damages? Past medical expenses Future medical expenses Out-of-pocket expenses Pain and suffering LOSS of established course Loss of earnings Loss of earning capacity established ordering of damages was submitted form. The jury in of loss of amount that an .ife was influence of a new trial MCA. We will to determine 895 P.2d at 632. if Maurer attempts established less is course of life compensation fallacious. course loss of be considered that found of the evidence 223 Mont. the of established the jury's and earning that Maurer suffered $90,000 be in issue 239, 254, jury's the jury no when it Section substantially Safeco 725 P.2d Ins. 217, award of $500,000 the District a new trial ordering and we affirm that Co. v. for The 226. for loss Court portion for awarded recovered. can sustain. Therefore, of life. discretion damages on this Court's support course its loss Instead, life. damages cannot (1986), established awarded an award of to support which does not abuse course Unreasonable Ellinghouse record the jury of of earnings MCA. Thus, an award must be reduced exceeds the jury as damages to offset loss loss This justification Maurer's Maurer's evidence established 27-l-302, his capacity. produced $500,000. award for to the fact award for On the contrary, Maurer loss cannot of earning jury's as a whole than was requested. to award damages for capacity. the by pointing The jury's of life refusal to justify of did not compensatory of the District order. ISSUE 3 Did other the than District the Court accident err in excluding could that evidence have lead to of events Maurer's depression? During accident the family trial, Maurer he was depressed. ranch produced This and contributed evidence depression to his 9 that lead "course after Maurer of life" the car to leave damages. Clausen and became Tucker depressed former and an Specifically, attempted event girlfriend's and which In which was the in her December criminally charged with jury he was acquitted no with wanted to counter self-evident common Miller highly incident's sense viewpoint. significant stress charges. The Nevertheless, its prejudicial of Family was Following charge and that in January the to consider incident defendants The court excluded the merely defendants depression the Court and 1993. psychological Maurer's District a because question. the evidence substantially prejudice. district Maurer Maurer's the relevant, is exclude him evidence was from acknowledged its resulting the evidence a the criminal because of nature. Although value of suit Miller a felony. could jury (the him addition, link the with inadmissible prejudicial and that Maurer's against In felony incident the where linking proof a that reasons. was the ask other a civil assault, evidence of quadriplegic filed the Maurer an altercation 1991. from the offered condition she aggravated claims defendants during that 1990 August rendered August evidence because in being 1990, in Maurer ranch was broken settled trial introduce occurred neck resulted incident). left to Rule such court Svcs. outweighed 403, evidence may be excluded M.R.Evid. will has abused (19941, not its 267 by The decision be reversed 10 its danger 237, by this 260, 883 unfair or Court v. probative of whether Newville discretion. Mont. the if not unless State, P.2d 793, to the Dept. 806 (citing Kimes v. Herrin (1985), 217 Mont. 330, 333, 705 P.2d 108, 110) . We conclude provoking event and its that the Miller which probative nature. abused its discretion for to that reason. determine incident The jury to what The defendants order during to rebut his injury. should if Maurer's the loss depression the by its District Court of the Miller the opportunity stress of incident from established the Miller course of MCA. intended evidence must have produced that have been given any, a stress outweighed evidence to introduce cross-examination Before contributed conclude degree, to to Maurer's substantially in excluding See 5 26-l-202, incident was not We further contributed life. was certainly may have contributed value prejudicial incident this that to Maurer's of Maurer Maurer rebuttal testimony evidence and his was depressed could be admitted, to the fact depression that and his of the Miller witnesses in as a result of the defendants the Miller leaving incident the ranch. [Wlhen the admissibility of evidence depends upon proof of other connecting facts, the court may admit such evidence subject to the condition that further evidence be introduced sufficient to support a finding of those connecting facts. Rule 104(b), evidence of an event admissible between Kimes, M.R.Evid. unless the event In Kimes and Newville, which may have contributed the evidence and the establishes injury. 705 P.2d at 110. 11 Newville, we held to an injury a causal that is not connection 883 P.2d at 806; As we are remanding trial on compensatory life, the incident case to the District damages for District if this Court loss should such evidence of admit is offered Court established evidence a new course of and the proper for the of Miller foundation has been laid. ISSUE 4 Did the District of punitive damages work-related err in denying because evidence DUI convictions At trial, general Court a new trial of on the issue Clausen's employees' was excluded? the defendants' counsel asked Clausen Distributing's manager the following: During that period of time until Mr. Tucker's workrelated DUI, how many other DUIs have your employees had that were work related? The District Court On the reviewed sustained defendants' its ruling the employees motion of Clausen for objection for and concluded DUI was irrelevant. a new trial Maurer's new trial, that the District evidence Distributing We will had ever review to the question. of whether any of had a work-related the District an abuse of discretion. Court Court's See Baxter, denial of 895 P.2d at 632. The defendants were no defendants assert work-related claim Clausen's policy therefore be assessed against that of relevant that DUIs prior among evidence tolerating to Clausen. to Tucker's Clausen's to this punitive The court, 12 on there The employees. fact drinking whether accident would the job damages however, found vindicate and would should that be the jury's award for placing Tucker drive Clausen's We have stated make any that v. discretion Lutey in denying the Court of punitive for and DUIs. or less 1, 11, 674 P.2d are irrelevant because they of Clausen's conduct for abuse its damages. Court did not admissibility did not err in does not tend to 207 Mont. District a new trial the District the issue (1983), to drink damages more an award of punitive conclude that punitive the egregiousness assessed We therefore for conduct two previous when it the DUI records to disprove the jury of Tucker's is irrelevant factors Accordingly, do not tend hold knowledge Derenberger 485, 489. where he was permitted evidence requisite probable. damages was based on Clausen's in a position despite which punitive of evidence a new trial in denying and on damages. ISSUE 5 Did the District were instructions liability for given punitive The District Court Clausen contends intended for in this case. that punitive the instruction it The jury conduct." should err to in the denying jury on a new trial because Clausen's vicarious damages? instructed the the jury pattern damage actions On a motion for was a correct was not grounds Clausen Court on vicarious instruction given and was thus new trial, statement of Montana a verdict not concluded that law and giving a new trial. returned was not appropriate the court for liability. "be assessed Clausen's argument punitive that 13 against Clausen finding damages as a result the jury instruction that of its was not appropriate is punitive damages rather of moot than based under 261 prevail. Mont. 328, 332, prejudiced assess by the damages own conduct Big P.2d error 392 must court's denial review Inc. Walden case, because Tucker's MCA, seeking & Supply, for for show prejudice In this instruction Clausen In (citing 1190). liable s 27-1-221, theory. 389, court's Clausen under Sky Lumber 818 P.2d against found claiming v. 863 132, jury liability party Hall (1991) I 250 Mont. not on its the to the a vicarious an instruction, order because the in (1993), v. State Clausen was did not but conduct jury for its own. We will not an abuse of District Court err in denying of District of the of Miller for the 632. absent We conclude and therefore, the the did not of appropriateness District damages, on the course of a new trial as the of the on the the of the issues damages affirm of On remand court proper Justice to admit foundation a new District compensatory We also life. laid. 14 grant and we affirm instructions. we direct so long Court's issue of and jury new trial, incident at a new trial point. a new trial denial of discretion, because of punitive convictions Court 895 P.2d its trial established Court's work-related abuse we reverse issue grant loss District a new summary, on the Court's not was a moot In for did the Baxter, discretion. instruction trial overturn the employee to the evidence has been we concur: 15
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
