Faulk v. Aware, Inc.

GELLER, J. In this libel action the jury rendered a verdict awarding compensatory damages of $ 1,000,000 against the three defendants and punitive damages of $ 1,250,000 each against defendants Aware, Inc., and Vincent Hartnett.

The fact that the amounts awarded are very large does not necessarily render the verdict excessive as a matter of law. The question is whether there is a rational basis for the jury's awards in the evidence adduced and in the circumstances of this case. The court should not substitute its judgment for that of the jury, unless the amounts awarded are insupportable under any fair-minded view of the facts.

However, since an award of damages always rests in the "sound discretion" of a jury, it is subject to court review. That discretion must be exercised in accordance with the applicable rules of law and on the basis of the evidence in the case.

The damages recoverable for a libel consist of two items:

(1) Compensatory damages, to compensate and make reparation in full for all the damage suffered by a plaintiff as the result and consequence thereof, so that a defamed person is entitled to be compensated for the injury to his reputation and standing publicly, privately and professionally; for his mental anguish and distress, his feeling of mortification and suffering, in his private as well as public life; and for loss of income or earnings.

(2) Punitive (exemplary) damages, which may be awarded in a jury's discretion in addition to compensatory damages only in certain actions of willful torts such as libel and assault, provided the jury finds malice on the part of a defendant or such reckless and wanton indifference to the rights of others as is deemed in law the equivalent of malice; punitive damages are authorized under the law as a penalty to punish such a defendant, to deter him from a repetition of the offense and to warn others of like mind from perpetrating similar wrongs.

We will consider each of these two types of awards separately, just as the jury was instructed to do in its deliberations and form of verdict.

I. Compensatory Damages

The principal item of damages was plaintiff's claim that he had been rendered unemployable in the television and radio industry as the direct result of the alleged libel and the concerted acts of the defendants, depriving him of the opportunity to realize his earning capacities in his profession.

There was substantial testimony, which was uncontradicted, that prior to the alleged libel in February, 1956, plaintiff, in addition to his regular radio show, had appeared on a large number of television programs and had shown particular talent for that medium, being especially suited for the game, fun and quiz shows which were extremely popular during the period here involved. There also was uncontradicted testimony of an upward trend during this period in the television industry and in the income earned by television performers.

Plaintiff offered proof of his earning capacity through experts in the industry familiar with his achievements and abilities, among whom were Mark Goodson, David Susskind and Gary Moore, well-known producers of television shows.

It is well settled that a person wrongfully injured is entitled to recover for deprivation of future earning capacity, without limitation to his actual earnings preceding the injury; and that opinion testimony with regard to his potential earnings in that field by experts familiar with his capacities, is admissible.

When expert testimony along these lines was offered by plaintiff, the jury was instructed as to how to consider it, and reminded again in the charge: "The testimony of an expert is not to be accepted or rejected at will, but is to be weighed and considered by you in the same manner as the testimony of other witnesses, and to be given such weight as in the exercise of your best judgment you believe it is well-founded, reasonable, consistent with all the testimony in the case, and justly deserves."

Since such expert testimony as to plaintiff's earning capacity was admissible in evidence and the jury given appropriate instructions in line with authoritative precedent, it must follow that they had the right to consider it in fixing compensatory damages.

The testimony of plaintiff's expert witnesses was that he would have earned during the period involved a minimum of $ 150,000 a year, that television performers of his type, naming them, were earning from $ 150,000 to $ 1,000,000 annually, in addition to incidental outside income. They testified that he would have earned between $ 150,000 and $ 500,000 annually, giving the reasons for their opinion. Defendants offered no proof in contradiction of plaintiff's experts.

The minimal figure of plaintiff's experts would represent damages of $ 900,000 for the six years involved. Assuming that the jury accepted that figure, they could take into consideration the other elements of injury to plaintiff's reputation and his mental anguish and distress in public and private life arising from the nature of the charge made against him, and find basis for arriving at compensatory damages in the sum of $ 1,000,000.

Assessment of damages in such a matter is peculiarly within the province of a jury and, so long as it has a rational basis in the evidence, its verdict should not be disturbed.

The motions of all defendants to set aside the verdict with respect to compensatory damages are accordingly denied.