stating that punitive damages are intended to punish “outrageous conduct which is malicious, wanton, reckless, or in willful disregard for another’s rights”
How later courts described this case
- stating that punitive damages are intended to punish “outrageous conduct which is malicious, wanton, reckless, or in willful disregard for another’s rights”
- noting that such a public policy is reflected in the District’s statutory privilege that prevents physicians from testifying about their patients’ medical conditions without their consent as well as certain licensing statutes
- noting that fiduciaries have a duty to “scrupulously hon- or the trust and confidence reposed in them because” of fiduciary relationship
- plaintiff in invasion of privacy case may recover for emotional distress and harm to reputation
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NEWMAN, Associate Judge,
concurring:
What the role of a judge of the trial court is when deciding the grant or denial of a motion for new trial on the grounds of an excessive verdict in light of the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution, is far from clear. See 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2818-2820 (1976); 6A J. Moore, J. Lucas & G. Grot-heer, Moore’s Federal Practice 1159.08 (2d ed. 1984). The role of an appellate court is even more murky. Id. The Supreme Court has left the matter rather opaque. Compare Metropolitan Railroad Co. v. Moore, 121 U.S. 558 , 7 S.Ct. 1334 , 30 L.Ed. 1022 (1887); Southern Railway Co. v. Ben nett, 233 U.S. 80 , 34 S.Ct. 566 , 58 L.Ed. 860 (1914); Fairmount Glass Works v. Cub Fork Coal Co., 287 U.S. 474 , 53 S.Ct. 252 , 77 L.Ed. 439 (1933), with Affolder v. New York, C. & St. L. R.R. Co., 339 U.S. 96 , 70 S.Ct. 509 , 94 L.Ed. 683 (1950). Neese v. Southern Railway Co., 350 U.S. 77 , 76 S.Ct. 131 , 100 L.Ed. 60 (1955), and Grunenthal v. Long Island Railroad Co., 393 U.S. 156 , 89 S.Ct. 331 , 21 L.Ed.2d 309 (1968). One thing is clear to me. All judges should be exceedingly reluctant to set aside jury verdicts as excessive or to remit them in the face of the constitutional right to jury trial. Given the current state of the law in this whole area, I will leave to a later day and case, further exploration of the subject.
I concur in the judgment of the court.