Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Tom Bennett and James B. Bonham Corporation v. Larry Wayne Grant
Citation: Not availableDocket: 03-11-00669-CV
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; August 24, 2018; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The Texas Court of Appeals addressed a long-standing dispute between cattle ranchers Tom Bennett, James Bonham Corporation, and Larry Wayne Grant, resulting in a judgment for Grant on claims of malicious prosecution. The trial court awarded Grant actual and exemplary damages, which were subsequently challenged. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment but found the exemplary damages to exceed constitutional limits, suggesting a remittitur to reduce the exemplary damages from $1 million against each defendant to $32,109, thus achieving a 3:1 ratio of actual to exemplary damages. This ratio was justified by considering both the actual harm and potential harm Grant would have suffered had the alleged tortious actions succeeded, estimating wrongful imprisonment damages of $160,000 combined with $10,703 in actual damages. The Texas Supreme Court later affirmed the need for exemplary damages but criticized the Court of Appeals for not reducing the award sufficiently. The current issue on remand is the proper reduction of exemplary damages, which the Court of Appeals addressed by conditioning its affirmation of the trial court's judgment on a remittitur. The supreme court determined that the evaluation of 'harm likely to result from Bennett’s conduct' should exclude potential 'consequences of wrongful imprisonment' and focus solely on 'probable damages' from malicious prosecution. The court noted that wrongful imprisonment was unlikely due to the expiration of the limitations period. In remanding the case, the court indicated that it was appropriate to consider attorney fees incurred by Grant for defending against the charges, which were $5,703, alongside $5,000 in mental anguish damages. Since these fees were awarded as actual damages, they should not be included in potential damages calculations. The court also suggested considering the time Grant spent away from work due to the criminal proceedings. However, Grant's testimony did not provide evidence of lost income or missed work, indicating that he did not suffer damages in this regard. Consequently, the court concluded that no additional damages beyond those already awarded were supported by the record. The court affirmed a 3:1 ratio for exemplary damages compared to the total damages awarded, resulting in acceptable exemplary damages of $32,109 against each defendant, down from a previously awarded $1,024,218. The court conditioned its affirmance on Grant filing a remittitur to reduce the exemplary damages by $480,000 within 30 days. If Grant complies, the judgment will be reformed; otherwise, the award will be reversed and remanded for a new determination of exemplary damages.