punitive damages against employer in amount greater than against employee proper where employer’s liability appears “based upon more than mere ratification,” but dissent reiterates that liability of employer under theory of ratification “cannot be in excess of that of the employee”
How later courts described this case
- punitive damages against employer in amount greater than against employee proper where employer’s liability appears “based upon more than mere ratification,” but dissent reiterates that liability of employer under theory of ratification “cannot be in excess of that of the employee”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*335 Judge McGEE
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority opinion that there is direct evidence to support punitive damages against both Bobby Dixon and Duke University. However, I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion affirming a punitive damage award against Duke in the amount of $500,000 when the jury itself found Duke not liable for negligent retention of its employee Bobby Dixon but liable only for ratification of the actions of its employee. As we stated in our prior opinion, it is well settled that the liability of the employer under a theory of vicarious liability, such as respondeat superior or ratification, cannot be in excess of that of the employee. See Pinnix v. Griffin, 221 N.C. 348 , 20 S.E.2d 366 (1942); Thompson v. Lassiter, 246 N.C. 34 , 97 S.E.2d 492 (1957); Poole v. Copland, Inc., 125 N.C. App. 235 , 481 S.E.2d 88 (1997), rev’d and remanded on other grounds, 348 N.C. 260 , 498 S.E.2d 602 (1998). The jury set the punitive damages award against Dixon at $5,000 and present case law of our Courts limits Duke’s liability to an equal amount.