Deese v. Brown, etc., [Ms. SC-2023-0798, Sep. 27, 2024] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2024). The Court (Bryan, J.; Parker, C.J., and Shaw, Wise, Sellers, Stewart, Mitchell, and Cook, JJ., concur) reverses the Houston Circuit Court’s order granting Plaintiff Jerald Brown’s motion for a new trial in a wrongful death action arising from an automobile collision in which the jury returned a verdict with respect to Florence Trigger’s death, for $50,000, and for $1 with respect to Raymond Trigger’s death.
In his motion for a new trial, Brown argued “‘[o]nce the jury found no contributory negligence on behalf of Mr. Trigger, the assessment of punitive damages for Mr. and Mrs. Trigger should have been equal.” The motion did not cite any case or other authority demonstrating that the Equal Protection Clause requires identical punitive-damages awards for claims arising under Alabama’s wrongful-death statute.’” Ms. *7.
In reversing, the Court holds “the jury was instructed, without objection from any party, that it could award differing amounts of damages on the wrongful-death claims and that it was within its discretion to award nominal damages regarding Raymond’s death. Unchallenged jury instructions become the law of the case.” Ms. *18, internal citations and quotation marks omitted.
Having failed to object to the jury instructions, Brown was left with arguing the adequacy of the $1 damage award but “the alleged inadequacy of a punitive-damages award in a wrongful-death case is not a sufficient basis upon which to grant a plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.” Ms. *19. The Court refuses to depart from a century of precedent holding that “permitting trial courts to even consider whether an award is adequate to punish a defendant would violate the Alabama Constitution.” Ms. *25.