Opinion
2024-CA-0310-MR
12-06-2024
RUSLAN FEYZULOV APPELLANT v. RAVSHAN ALIYEV[1] APPELLEE
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: Dennie Hardin BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Matthew J. Baker.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL FROM WARREN CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER T. COHRON, JUDGE ACTION NO. 20-CI-00017
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: Dennie Hardin
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Matthew J. Baker.
BEFORE: CETRULO, COMBS, AND EASTON, JUDGES.
OPINION
COMBS, JUDGE:
Ruslan Feyzulov was criminally charged, tried, and convicted in Warren District Court for assaulting Ravshan Aliyev. In the civil action that followed, the Warren Circuit Court found that Aliyev was entitled to recover the sum of $77,444.45 as compensatory damages. The court also assessed punitive damages totaling $75,000.00. On appeal, Feyzulov challenges the court's award both for pain and suffering and for punitive damages. He contends that these amounts are unlawful. After our review, we affirm the judgment.
Feyzulov assaulted Aliyev on October 4, 2019. At the criminal trial that followed, Feyzulov was convicted of fourth-degree assault and was sentenced to 180 days in jail. On January 6, 2020, Aliyev filed a civil action against Feyzulov in Warren Circuit Court.
In an order entered on March 20, 2023, the circuit court concluded that Aliyev was entitled to judgment as a matter of law with respect to liability. A bench trial was conducted on October 18, 2023, in order to determine damages. The trial court heard testimony presented by Aliyev; reviewed his medical records; studied photographs of his injuries; and watched a video recording of the assault. Feyzulov did not testify.
The court found from the evidence that Aliyev suffered serious and permanent injuries as a result of the assault. It found that Aliyev was entitled to recover his medical expenses in the amount of $2,444.45. Finding that the proof concerning Aliyev's pain and suffering was conclusive, the court determined that he was entitled to recover the sum of $75,000 for the total of $77,444.45 in compensatory damages.
With respect to Aliyev's claim for punitive damages, the court found that the assault was "especially egregious" and that Aliyev was entitled to recover the sum of $75,000.00. Judgment was entered on December 22, 2023. Feyzulov's motion to set aside the awards for pain and suffering and punitive damages was denied, and this appeal followed.
On appeal, Feyzulov contends that Aliyev "outwitted the trial court with a self-serving dissertation of his medical woes" and describes the court's judgment as nothing more than a lottery win. He argues that the award for pain and suffering was excessive given the "fixed damages of [Aliyev's] medical bills of $2,444.45." He contends that the award for punitive damages is "wholly inconsistent with the proof offered at trial."
Our review of a judgment entered following a bench trial is governed by the standard established by the Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR). In the event of a bench trial, CR 52.01 directs that the trial court "shall find the facts specifically and state separately its conclusions of law." Judging the credibility of witnesses and weighing the evidence are within the exclusive province of the factfinder; therefore, its findings of fact cannot be set aside on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous. Id. Findings of fact are not clearly erroneous where they are supported by substantial evidence. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Golightly, 976 S.W.2d 409 (Ky. 1998). Although we review the trial court's factual findings for clear error, we review its conclusions of law de novo. Sawyers v. Beller, 384 S.W.3d 107 (Ky. 2012).
With respect to compensatory damages in any personal injury action, a plaintiff must provide evidence in support of his claim to damages for pain and suffering. Spalding v. Shinkle, 774 S.W.2d 465 (Ky. App. 1989) (citing American States Ins. v. Audubon Country Club, 650 S.W.2d 252 (Ky. 1983)). This evidence can consist of or be plaintiff's own testimony and proof. Williams v. Kirtley, 263 S.W.2d 119 (Ky. 1953). However, "no rule can be laid down by which damages for pain and suffering . . . may be accurately measured." Stanley v. Caldwell, 274 S.W.2d 383, 385 (Ky. 1954). Instead, an award is left to the sound judgment and discretion of the factfinder. Roland v. Murray, 239 S.W.2d 967 (Ky. 1951). An appellate court will not interfere with the decision "unless the assessment of damages was influenced by passion and prejudice, or it is so unreasonable as to appear at first blush disproportionate to the injuries sustained." Stanley, 274 S.W.2d at 385.
An award of punitive damages is also largely discretionary with the factfinder. If the trier of fact exercises its discretion and grants punitive damages, any claim relating to whether the award was unconstitutionally excessive is subject to review for errors of law. See, e.g., Ragland v. DiGiuro, 352 S.W.3d 908, 916-17 (Ky. 2010). Aliyev was not required to prove that his pain and suffering were worth a specific dollar amount -- nor that Feyzulov's attack warranted a specific monetary penalty.
At trial, Aliyev described the extent of his injuries. He explained that he suffered severe pain in his head at the time of the beating. He testified that he experienced sharp pains throughout his body and especially in his head, neck, and back. Photographs showed abrasions to his neck, back, forehead, and head. He was prescribed pain medication at the hospital. Aliyev indicated that he continued to be dizzy, to lose his balance, and to black out. He admitted that he failed to seek appropriate care because he lacked medical insurance. Aliyev testified that even at the time of trial, he continued to experience sharp pain in his head and that he had trouble sleeping and concentrating. He indicated that he could not carry out his normal activities as before the beating and that he continued to control his pain with Ibuprofen. Based on this evidence, the court awarded Aliyev $75,000.00 for his pain and suffering. In light of the evidence presented, the award does not appear to have been influenced by passion and prejudice. Instead, it bears a reasonable relationship to evidence of the injuries sustained. Accordingly, we find no error in the circuit court's refusal to set it aside.
Feyzulov argues that the court's award of punitive damages is also excessive. He contends that his conduct was not so very reprehensible because his victim was not "some stranger on the street" and he did not "sucker punch" Aliyev -- or use anything other than his fists to assault him. Again, the beating was captured on video recording. Furthermore, the evidence at trial indicated that before Feyzulov attacked Aliyev, he telephoned to threaten him and call him names. When Feyzulov confronted Aliyev at Aliyev's property, he brought other men with him.
On appeal, we must consider a number of factors to determine whether an award of punitive damages is unconstitutionally excessive. McDonald's Corp. v. Ogborn, 309 S.W.3d 274 (Ky. App. 2009). Those factors include: "(1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct, (2) the disparity or the ratio between the harm or potential harm suffered by the plaintiffs and the punitive damage award, and (3) the difference between the punitive damage award and the penalties imposed for similar misconduct." Yung v. Grant Thornton, LLP, 563 S.W.3d 22, 65 (Ky. 2018). The most important of these factors is the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's misconduct. Id. at 66. Reviewing these factors, we conclude that the trial court's $75,000 punitive damages award is not unconstitutionally excessive.
From unchallenged and undisputed evidence, the court found that Feyzulov had previously engaged in the same or similar conduct for which he had been charged and convicted. It described Feyzulov's attack upon Aliyev as "simply abhorrent" and observed that it "culminated in a vicious body slam on the pavement." It found that a substantial punitive damages award was warranted because Feyzulov knew at the time that he assaulted Aliyev that Aliyev would likely suffer serious harm. The court was presented with overwhelming evidence as to the malicious nature of the assault perpetrated by Feyzulov. Aliyev sustained serious injuries; the beating was clearly reprehensible.
When assessing whether punitive damages were unconstitutionally excessive, we compare an award of punitive damages to the total award for compensatory damages -- not to the amount of medical expenses proven. See R. O. v. A.C. ex rel. M.C., 384 S.W.3d 185 (Ky. App. 2012) (determining that $6 million punitive damages award was not unconstitutionally excessive since it was less than three times the total compensatory damages award, which consisted of $2 million for emotional distress and physical pain and suffering and about $41,000 for medical expenses).
In the case before us, the punitive damages award was actually less than the amount of compensatory damages awarded. In light of Aliyev's evidence, we cannot say that there is a significant disparity between the actual harm suffered and the punitive damages award. We conclude that the punitive damages award was not unconstitutionally excessive.
We affirm the judgment of the Warren Circuit Court.
ALL CONCUR.