Narrative Opinion Summary
Defendant appeals a judgment favoring plaintiff for general, special, and punitive damages in a battery action. After the jury’s verdict, defendant sought a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial, claiming insufficient evidence for punitive damages. However, defendant did not raise this issue during the trial, and as per ORCP 64B(6) and Moulding v. Clackamas County, issues not raised during trial cannot be introduced in post-trial motions. The court's denial of defendant's motion was upheld, supported by sufficient evidence justifying the jury's punitive damages verdict. Plaintiff requested an additional 10 percent of the judgment under ORS 19.160, which was deemed justified. The appeal lacked probable cause and only delayed judgment payment. The original judgment is affirmed, and plaintiff is awarded an additional 10 percent of the total judgment.
Legal Issues Addressed
Affirmation of Original Judgmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court affirmed the original judgment, including the plaintiff's additional compensation request.
Reasoning: The original judgment is affirmed, and plaintiff is awarded an additional 10 percent of the total judgment.
Award of Additional Compensation under ORS 19.160subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Plaintiff was justified in receiving an additional 10 percent of the judgment due to the defendant's appeal lacking probable cause and merely delaying payment.
Reasoning: Plaintiff requested an additional 10 percent of the judgment under ORS 19.160, which was deemed justified. The appeal lacked probable cause and only delayed judgment payment.
Preservation of Issues for Appeal under ORCP 64B(6)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Defendant's failure to raise the issue of insufficient evidence for punitive damages during the trial precluded them from introducing it in post-trial motions.
Reasoning: However, defendant did not raise this issue during the trial, and as per ORCP 64B(6) and Moulding v. Clackamas County, issues not raised during trial cannot be introduced in post-trial motions.
Sufficiency of Evidence for Punitive Damagessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict awarding punitive damages to the plaintiff.
Reasoning: The court's denial of defendant's motion was upheld, supported by sufficient evidence justifying the jury's punitive damages verdict.