Douglas

Douglas v. Ostermeier

Bad Law
1 Cal. App. 4th 729·1991 Cal. App. LEXIS 1413·2 Cal. Rptr. 2d 594·91 Daily Journal DAR 15138
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 9, 1991B046862California7,915 words

Opinion

Opinion

Johnson, J.

Appellants, Anton Ostermeier and West Coast Car Sales, appeal from a judgment entered on a jury verdict awarding respondents rescission on a car sales contract of $24,354 and awarding compensatory damages of $10,624 on the fraud cause of action as well as $187,000 in punitive damages. Appellants attack the amount of punitive damages as excessive as a matter of law. They also contend the punitive damage award is a result of passion and prejudice created by the improper expert testimony concerning the value of appellants’ property by respondent Patricia Douglas.

During the pendency of this appeal, the California Supreme Court decided Adams v. Murakami (1991) 54 Cal.3d 105 [ 284 Cal.Rptr. 318 , 813 P.2d 1348 ], which determined a plaintiff must present evidence of a defendant’s financial condition as a prerequisite to an award of punitive damages. We conclude principles of fairness and public policy do not compel the conclusion the decision should be given only prospective effect and apply this new requirement to the case at bar. However, we further conclude adequate evidence of appellants’ financial condition was presented at trial to substantiate the jury’s award of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.