Opinion
C.A. No. 01C-10-268 CLS.
Submitted: November 3, 2003.
Decided: December 10, 2003. Revised: January 28, 2004.
On Defendants' Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, or in the alternative, for a New Trial.
DENIED.
Joseph M. Bernstein, Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Plaintiff.
James S. Yoder, Esquire, White Williams, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Defendants.
REVISED MEMORANDUM OPINION
Having reviewed the file for Plaintiff's Motion for Costs, it became apparent that the version of the opinion on file was not the court's opinion. This is the correct opinion.
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendants Best Buy Co. of Minnesota, Inc. and Best Buy Stores, L.P. ("Best Buy") have filed a Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 50 or, in the alternative, a Motion for a New Trial pursuant to Rule 59. Upon consideration of the evidence presented at trial and a review of Best Buy's motions and plaintiff's response, this court concludes Best Buy's motions should be DENIED.
II. BACKGROUND
On June 29, 2000 plaintiff Lauren Hicks ("Hicks") was detained at the Best Buy store where she was employed part-time. Hicks was leaving the store to attend to personal needs when she was stopped from leaving and asked to go to the store office. In the office, Hicks was confronted with computer printouts related to a merchandise return transaction that had occurred June 10, 2000. The transaction involved the return of a computer video card by another Best Buy employee. The return initially generated a refund in the form of a check to be mailed to the employee. This "mail check" transaction was voided by Hicks' supervisor and a store credit voucher was issued instead. Inventory evidence showed a shortage of such computer cards for the month of June.Best Buy detained Hicks and initiated questioning by the police with printouts from this single transaction. Best Buy management knew that this transaction did not reveal a crime, yet they called the police. This single transaction was the focus of issues of wrongdoing in the trial. Hicks was questioned about the transaction by a New Castle County police officer based on the printouts provided by Best Buy management. The officer transported Hicks to the police station where she was questioned further. While awaiting questioning, Hicks was chained to a bench. The following morning, Hicks was taken before a Magistrate and charged with theft. The charges were later dropped and all criminal proceedings against Hicks were discontinued. Hicks brought this action for malicious prosecution against Best Buy. A jury trial was held from September 22 through 24, 2003. The jury returned its verdict in favor of Hicks, awarding $10,000 in compensatory damages and $30,000 in punitive damages.
Best Buy filed a Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict under Superior Court Civil Rule 50 or, in the alternative, a Motion for a New Trial under Rule 59 on October 6, 2003. Hicks filed a response on November 3, 2003.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The court does not weigh the evidence in deciding a Motion for Judgment, but rather, views the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. The court, drawing all reasonable inferences, determines if it may find a verdict for the party having the burden. In order to grant judgment as a matter of law, the court must find "there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for the [non-movant] on that issue." Thus, "the factual findings of a jury will not be disturbed if there is any competent evidence upon which the verdict could reasonably be based."
Mumford v. Paris, 2003 WL 231611 at *2 (Del.Super.).
Id.
Brown v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 774 A.2d 232, 245 (Del. 2001) (internal citation omitted).
Mumford at *2 (internal citation omitted).
In a Motion for a New Trial, the court starts with the fundamental principle that the jury's verdict is presumed to be correct. The court must determine whether the jury's verdict is against the great weight of evidence. The jury's verdict should not be disturbed unless it is clearly shown to be the result of passion, prejudice, partiality or corruption, or that it was manifestly in disregard of the evidence or applicable rules of law. If a case "involves a controverted issue of fact in which the evidence is conflicting and out of the conflict may be gathered sufficient evidence to support a verdict for either party, the issue of fact will be left . . . to the jury. . . ." The court will not upset the verdict of a jury unless "the evidence preponderates so heavily against the jury verdict that a reasonable jury could not have reached the result."
Young v. Frase, 702 A.2d 1234, 1236 (Del. 1997).
Storey v. Camper, 401 A.2d 458, 465 (Del. 1979) (internal citation omitted).
Young, 702 A.2d at 1237 (internal citation omitted).
Storey, 401 A.2d at 463 (internal citation omitted).
Id. at 465 (internal citation omitted).
IV. DISCUSSION
Best Buy argues Hicks failed to establish that (1) Best Buy initiated judicial proceedings against her, (2) Best Buy instituted the judicial proceedings with malice, (3) Best Buy lacked probable cause for the institution of judicial proceedings, and (4) Best Buy's conduct warranted the imposition of punitive damages. Best Buy submits these are fatal errors warranting Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict in their favor or, alternatively, a new trial.Hicks counters that (1) she was arrested before the police made any independent investigation, therefore, the proceedings against her were initiated by information provided by Best Buy; (2) the probable cause element was submitted to the jury incorporating the proper standard; and (3) she had to prove that Best Buy acted recklessly in order to receive compensatory damages which is enough to support an award of punitive damages. Hicks thus concludes there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings which should not be overturned. Additionally, Hicks asserts there was no contrary preponderance of the evidence necessary to support granting a new trial.
For Hicks' malicious prosecution claim to prevail, she must prove five elements:
(1) Best Buy instituted civil or criminal proceedings against her,
(2) No probable cause existed to support the charge or claim,
(3) The proceedings were instituted and pursued with malice,
(4) The proceedings were terminated in Hicks' favor, and
(5) Hicks suffered damages as a result.
Nix v. Sawyer, 466 A.2d 407, 411 (Del Super. 1983).
A. Institution of criminal proceedings.
Best Buy argues Hicks failed to prove Best Buy initiated civil or criminal proceedings against her. Best Buy argues the police conducted an independent investigation before obtaining an arrest warrant. Best Buy points to the investigating detective's testimony that Hicks was free to leave the store at any time and, therefore, not under arrest until after he had completed his independent investigation. Hicks counters that any investigation by the police came after she was taken to the police station. Hicks thus concludes the decision to take her to the police station was made solely on the basis of information provided to police by Best Buy management. Hicks asserts she did not feel free to leave. She was prevented from leaving the store to attend to personal needs when she was told to come to the store office for initial questioning. Later, while waiting to be questioned at the police station, she was chained to a bench.
In Delaware, the law of arrest is well-established. It is clear that a person can be "arrested" even before formal charges are brought against them. The law is clear that when a reasonable person does not feel free to leave, that person can be considered "arrested."
Harris v. State, 806 A.2d 119, 124 (Del. 2002).
Id. (finding an arrest occurs when a person submits to an officer's assertion of authority).
The court finds there is sufficient testimony to support the jury's finding that Hicks was "arrested" within the definition under Delaware law before she was formally charged. The court finds this is sufficient to support the jury's finding that Best Buy instituted proceedings against Hicks. The court concludes there is no basis for granting either judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial on this issue.
B. Existence of probable cause.
Best Buy argues the issuance of a warrant by a neutral magistrate is prima facie evidence of the existence of probable cause. Best Buy argues there is no evidence to support a finding of fraud, false testimony, or withholding of material facts necessary to overcome the presumption of the existence of probable cause. Hicks counters there was sufficient evidence that Best Buy withheld material information that the jury could conclude this presumption had been rebutted.
Delaware law is clear that when there has been a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove lack of probable cause. This presumption can be overcome when the plaintiff presents evidence of fraud, false testimony or withholding of material evidence.
Brown v. Cluley, 179 A.2d 93, 98 (Del.Super. 1962); Megenhardt v. Nolan, 1990 WL 169009 at **2 (Del. 1990).
Id.
The court has reviewed the testimony of the investigating detective and concludes he testified that he would have wanted to conduct further inquiries before seeking the arrest warrant had he known a supervisor approved the allegedly fraudulent transaction in question. The court finds this is sufficient evidence from which the jury could infer Best Buy withheld material information from the police. The court concludes the jury could, therefore, have inferred that Hicks successfully rebutted the presumption of the existence of probable cause. Thus, there is no basis for granting either judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial on this issue.
C. Existence of malice.
Best Buy argues unrefuted evidence was presented that the proceedings against Hicks were not instituted and pursued with malice. While Hicks did not address this point directly in her brief in opposition to Best Buy's motions, the court sees this as the heart of the case.
The court has made a thorough review of the record. The court finds that the computer printouts introduced to show the single transaction in question was fraudulent do not, in fact, clearly show a theft occurred. The printouts do not show that Hicks retained the computer card in question. There was testimony regarding the usual procedure for the physical handling of such items being returned. Best Buy did not produce any evidence to show these procedures were not followed for this particular transaction. In fact, the only evidence of a theft was the testimony that the June inventory for this item in general was short — not that this particular item was missing.
Best Buy management witnesses testified that the printouts raised "red flags" implying theft, in part because the date the initial sale was made was changed during the return transaction. There was testimony from Hicks' supervisor that this change was the usual way of handling a customer's request to receive an immediate refund as a store credit instead of a mail check for returning merchandise valued at more than $250. The court concludes the date change only reflects, at most, a violation of store policy, not a theft.
The court finds the various testimonies about the meaning of all the printouts concerning the allegedly fraudulent transaction could easily lead the jury to infer there was confusion concerning just what the printouts did mean. The court finds the jury could easily have inferred that Best Buy acted recklessly in pursuing Hicks regarding the matter, particularly since there was also testimony that the person ultimately arrested for theft admitted using Hicks' store identification number to complete fraudulent returns.
The court has also reviewed the jury instructions. The court finds the jury was properly instructed that malice includes acts done with an intentional or reckless disregard of Hicks' rights. Having been properly instructed, the court finds, as noted in the discussion above, the jury could have inferred a finding of malice based on the reckless acts of Best Buy. The court thus concludes that Best Buy's argument is without merit and there is no basis for granting either judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial on this issue.
D. Punitive damages.
Best Buy argues its conduct did not rise to the level of culpability necessary to support an award for punitive damages. Best Buy also argues the amount of punitive damages awarded was grossly excessive and there was a great disparity between the compensatory and punitive damages amounts. Hicks counters the jury had to find Best Buy acted with at least the culpability of "reckless" in order to support an award of compensatory damages. Hicks argues this culpability is sufficient to support an award of punitive damages arising from the same conduct. Hicks also counters the amount of punitive damages was not so excessive as to "shock the conscience" of the court and thus the court has no basis for exercising its discretion to lower the amount.
Delaware law is clear that mere negligence will not justify the imposition of punitive damages. A defendant's conduct must exhibit at least a reckless indifference to the rights of others before punitive damages may be awarded. "[E]normous deference is given to jury verdicts. In the face of any reasonable difference of opinion, courts yield to the jury's decision. It follows that, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the validity of damages determined by the jury should likewise be presumed." A jury award will be "set aside only in the unusual case where it is clear that the award is so grossly out of proportion to the injuries suffered as to shock the [c]ourt's conscience."
Jardel Co. v. Hughes, 523 A.2d 518, 529 (Del. 1987).
Id.
Young, 702 A.2d at 1236.
Id. at 1236-37 (internal citation omitted).
The court finds an award of punitive damages of three times the compensatory damages does not rise to a level that "shocks the conscience" of the court. Nor does the court find that the total amount awarded as damages is grossly disproportionate to the injuries Hicks suffered. The court, therefore, finds no reason to adjust or overturn the amount of the jury's award for punitive damages. The court thus finds there is no basis for granting either judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial on this issue.
V. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the court finds no legal basis for granting either of Best Buy's motions. Therefore, Best Buy's Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict is DENIED. Best Buy's Motion for a New Trial is DENIED.