# Vassiliades v. Garfinckel's, Brooks Bros.

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 13, 1985 · 492 A.2d 580

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9698622

## Case

- **Full name:** Mary VASSILIADES, Appellant, v. GARFINCKEL'S, BROOKS BROTHERS, Miller & Rhoades, Inc., and Csaba Magassy, M.D., Appellees
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** May 13, 1985
- **Citations:** 492 A.2d 580; 11 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2057; 1985 D.C. App. LEXIS 387
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Newman
- **Judges:** Pryor, Newman, Rogers
- **Cited by:** 126 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9698622

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9698622. Public record. Not legal advice.