From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Johnson v. Behrle

Court of Appeals of Iowa
Jun 19, 2002
No. 2-134 / 01-0318 (Iowa Ct. App. Jun. 19, 2002)

Opinion

No. 2-134 / 01-0318.

Filed June 19, 2002.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cedar County, NANCY S. TABOR, Judge.

Defendants appeal from judgment entered on a jury verdict which awarded compensatory and punitive damages to the plaintiff. AFFIRMED.

Todd Weimer, Anamosa, for appellant.

Brian Fairfield, of Norton Norton, Lowden, for appellee.

Considered by SACKETT, C.J., and ZIMMER and VAITHESWARAN, JJ.


Defendants appeal from a judgment entered on a jury verdict which awarded compensatory and punitive damages to the plaintiff. They contend the trial court erred in granting the plaintiff's motion in limine and excluding certain evidence from trial. Defendants also argue the jury's award of punitive damages lacks evidentiary support. We affirm.

Background Facts and Proceedings .

Johnnie and Jonathan Behrle, father and son, and Stephen Johnson are neighbors. The Behrles reside on land which is accessed by a shared road over Johnson's property. The easement across the Johnson property has been a source of contention between the neighboring parties for some time.

On October 1, 1999, the Behrle men were leaving their property by way of the lane on the Johnson property. The defendants encountered Johnson and a physical altercation ensued in Johnson's driveway regarding a gate. Johnson suffered significant physical injuries and reported the incident to Cedar County law enforcement officers. The defendants were eventually acquitted on criminal charges related to the altercation.

On January 21, 2000, Johnson filed a civil lawsuit seeking compensatory and punitive damages from the Behrles. The Behrles filed an answer denying the plaintiff's allegations.

Prior to trial, Johnson filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude evidence of the defendants' acquittal on criminal charges related to the incident and evidence related to prior non-violent altercations between the parties. After a hearing, the trial court sustained the plaintiff's motion and ruled the evidence should be excluded.

A jury trial began on January 22, 2001. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The jury awarded Johnson $34,500 in compensatory damages, and assessed $15,000 in punitive damages against Johnnie Behrle, and $25,000 in punitive damages against Jonathan Behrle. The Behrles appeal.

Evidentiary Issues .

The Behrles contend the trial court erred in sustaining Johnson's motion in limine. They argue the trial court erred in excluding evidence that was relevant and necessary to provide the jury with a complete understanding of the case.

We generally review a trial court's rulings on admissibility of evidence for an abuse of discretion. State v. Axiotis, 569 N.W.2d 813, 815 (Iowa 1997). This "abuse of discretion" standard applies to decisions concerning relevancy. State v. Sinclair, 582 N.W.2d 762, 764 (Iowa 1998). An abuse of discretion is found and reversal warranted only when the trial court has exercised its discretion on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable. Id.; Axiotis, 569 N.W.2d at 815.

The trial court sustained the plaintiff's motion to exclude evidence of the Behrles' criminal acquittals, apparently relying on the long-standing rule that the record of an acquittal in a criminal prosecution is not admissible in evidence in a civil action to establish the truth of the facts on which it was rendered. See Book v. Datema, 131 N.W.2d 470, 471 (Iowa 1964). The defendants urged the trial court to disregard the rule under the circumstances. They argued the jury was likely to be left with unanswered questions after the plaintiff called the investigating officer to testify about the incident. The trial court was not persuaded by the defendant's argument and ruled the evidence excluded. We find no abuse of discretion in the court's decision.

The defendants also contend the trial court erred in sustaining the plaintiff's motion to exclude evidence of previous interactions and arguments between the Behrles and Johnson. Specifically, Johnson sought to exclude any mention of previous unpleasant verbal exchanges, the use of a video surveillance camera to monitor the property, and a previously filed civil condemnation lawsuit regarding the disputed easement. Johnson argued the introduction of such evidence would serve primarily to divert the jury's focus from the specific incident in question, the altercation that occurred on October 1, 1999. The defendants argued that evidence related to the parties' previous interactions was relevant and necessary to provide the jury with a complete understanding of the complicated history of the case.

After noting that the Behrles' did not present an affirmative defense of self-defense, the trial court ruled that evidence of prior conduct between the parties related to the property dispute was not admissible. The court determined that the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. We conclude there was no abuse of discretion in the court's decision to exclude the evidence.

Punitive Damages .

The Behrles' contend the award of punitive damages against the defendants is not supported by evidence. The Behrles' further argue that due to the trial court's evidentiary rulings, the jury was not allowed to assess the defendants' actions in the proper context.

An appellate court reviews an award of punitive damages for correction of errors at law. White v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 514 N.W.2d 70, 77 (Iowa 1994).

Iowa Code section 668A.1 (1999) provides that punitive damages may be awarded where "the conduct of the defendant from which the claim arose constituted willful and wanton disregard for the rights or safety of another." "Willful and wanton" means that the actor has intentionally committed an act of an unreasonable character, which is in disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow, and which is usually accompanied by a conscious indifference to the consequences. Fell v. Kewanee Farm Equip. Co., 457 N.W.2d 911, 919 (Iowa 1990). Punitive damages serve "as a form of punishment and to deter others from conduct which is sufficiently egregious to call for the remedy." Coster v. Crookham, 468 N.W.2d 802, 810 (Iowa 1991). Our primary focus in review of a punitive damage award is the relationship between that award and the wrongful conduct of the offending party. Ryan v. Arneson, 422 N.W.2d 491, 496 (Iowa 1988).

The Behrles were ordered to pay a total of $40,000 in punitive damages to Johnson. We conclude the jury's determination that the Behrles' actions constituted a willful and wanton disregard for the rights and safety of Johnson is well supported by the evidence. Testimony offered at trial provided the jury with a blow-by-blow account of the altercation which occurred October 1, 1999. While each party's version of the event differed, it was within the province of the jury to determine the credibility of the testifying witnesses. The jury heard Johnson describe how he was punched and kicked by the defendants for more than ten minutes, and then left lying on the ground. The investigating officer described Johnson's condition when he arrived. The jury saw pictures of Johnson's swollen, bruised face and heard medical testimony regarding the force required to produce the facial fractures he suffered. A specialist performed surgery on Johnson to repair his facial fractures. It took him two to three months to recover from the surgery. Johnson testified about the physical difficulties and discomfort he continues to deal with as a result of his injuries. We conclude the jury's award of punitive damages to the plaintiff is supported by evidence in the record.

The Behrles also claim punitive damages should not have been awarded because the jury was not provided with sufficient detail regarding the relationship of the parties. We disagree. The jury was aware the relationship between Johnnie Behrle and Stephen Johnson was not friendly before October 1, 1999. The record reveals the jury was told the Behrles did not like Johnson's gates. The jury was informed that deputies had been called to the Johnson property on prior occasions because of disputes between the parties. The jury knew that Johnnie Behrle had filed a civil lawsuit against Johnson to condemn a portion of Johnson's property. The jury knew that on September 20, 1999, the district court denied the condemnation petition and awarded only an easement. The jury knew Berhle appealed the ruling. The jury clearly knew the relationship between the parties was troubled prior to the incident which occurred on October 1, 1999, when it made its award of punitive damages.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Johnson v. Behrle

Court of Appeals of Iowa
Jun 19, 2002
No. 2-134 / 01-0318 (Iowa Ct. App. Jun. 19, 2002)
Case details for

Johnson v. Behrle

Case Details

Full title:STEPHEN ROBERT JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JONATHAN KIM BEHRLE and…

Court:Court of Appeals of Iowa

Date published: Jun 19, 2002

Citations

No. 2-134 / 01-0318 (Iowa Ct. App. Jun. 19, 2002)