Zok v. State

Citations: 903 P.2d 574; 1995 Alas. LEXIS 115; 1995 WL 574304Docket: S-5728

Court: Alaska Supreme Court; September 29, 1995; Alaska; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Hassan Zok filed a lawsuit against three Anchorage International Airport Safety Officers and the State of Alaska, alleging assault and illegal arrest. During the liability phase of his bifurcated trial, the jury found the officers liable for illegal arrest but awarded Zok no damages. Zok subsequently moved for a new trial, claiming the jury's zero damages verdict was inconsistent with their finding of liability and that the court erred by not instructing the jury on nominal damages.

Zok contended that he was entitled to nominal damages as a matter of law and that the absence of such an instruction warranted a new trial. However, the court noted that challenges to verdict consistency must be raised before the jury is discharged, and since Zok did not do this, he waived that right. Regarding the nominal damages instruction, the court referenced Alaska Civil Rule 51(a), which requires parties to object to jury instructions before deliberation. Zok's attorney failed to object to the lack of a nominal damages instruction, leading the court to consider whether plain error occurred. Plain error is defined as an instruction that likely leads to a miscarriage of justice. The court will assess whether the omission of the nominal damages instruction probably affected the jury's verdict.

False arrest constitutes a form of false imprisonment. Victims of false arrest are entitled to nominal damages by law, irrespective of proof of actual damages, as established in various case law. The legal principle dictates that no proof of monetary loss is necessary to support a claim for false arrest, thereby entitling the plaintiff to nominal damages once unlawful arrest is determined. Nominal damages serve to affirm a plaintiff's rights, even when no substantial injury has occurred. Courts recognize two types of nominal damages: a minimal award for a technical rights violation without actual injury, and a different award when actual loss is proven but the extent of damages is unquantified. The case of Cottone v. Cristiano illustrates the necessity to affirm rights through nominal damages despite the absence of substantial injury. In Farrar v. Cain, the court emphasized the right to nominal damages even when civil rights violations do not lead to actual injury, reinforcing that such awards are a significant legal entitlement.

Nominal damages, capped at one dollar, are awarded when a fundamental right is infringed, with the jury required to consider such a finding in damage calculations. In this case, the jury found that Hobby violated Farrar's civil rights, necessitating an award of nominal damages, which the trial court erroneously failed to grant despite the Farrars' motion for a new trial. Consequently, the court remanded for the entry of nominal damages against Hobby. 

The failure to instruct the jury on nominal damages deprived Zok of full vindication for his unlawful arrest, as the mere finding of liability without an accompanying nominal damages award constituted an incomplete remedy. Nominal damages, defined as minimal monetary awards, are typically one cent or one dollar, and are essential for recognizing a violation of rights, even if they do not entail significant financial compensation. 

While appellate courts generally do not reverse judgments solely to allow for nominal damages, some cases indicate that failure to award nominal damages can affect the recovery of punitive damages or determine the prevailing party for attorney's fees. In this instance, since the trial court had already granted summary judgment on punitive damages and attorney's fees were not contested, Zok did not suffer substantive monetary loss from the failure to award nominal damages.

However, given the jury's finding of unlawful arrest, nominal damages are warranted to reflect Zok's right to freedom from unlawful confinement. Thus, the court concluded that a judgment awarding Zok one dollar in nominal damages should be entered without necessitating a new trial, correcting the verdict as a matter of law. The court remanded the case for this specific award while rejecting all other claims of error raised by Zok on appeal.

Zok, representing himself on appeal after having had legal counsel at trial, claimed the trial court erred by not admitting evidence. However, he did not provide substantive arguments on this issue in his opening brief, only briefly mentioning it in his reply brief, resulting in waiver of the issue under Alaska appellate rules. Similarly, his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was also waived due to inadequate argumentation. The court noted that there is no recognized right to effective assistance of retained counsel in civil matters, suggesting that any perceived deficiencies should be addressed through a legal malpractice claim.

Under Alaska Civil Rule 59(a), the trial court has discretion to grant a new trial in the interest of justice, and such decisions are only overturned in exceptional circumstances. The court reviews denials of new trials favorably towards the non-moving party.

Regarding false imprisonment, liability arises when a person intends to confine another within fixed boundaries, resulting in actual confinement, and the confined party is aware or harmed by this confinement. Zok argued for a ten million dollar nominal damages award, which the court deemed excessive, noting that while nominal damages can support punitive damages, they are not strictly required.

In a precedent case, the court reversed a ruling on inverse condemnation even when the amount at stake was minimal, indicating that remand is warranted in Zok's case due to the significance of his rights against unlawful confinement, though a new trial may not be necessary to rectify prior errors.