ÿWPCÔ  …# VU:a %› 0¸¡4Y m | 0ü„ 0D€ Ä w@Ä 0J D3N 0T 0^Õ 0h3 0r› 0|  0†‰ 0 1uŸU, 0d@U,¤U*ÐB)úb#DC+ AMn˜».Sv~ BÿvÓ 0@ï AO/Æ~ 0DD D/ˆ B· ˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀäÌÀÀÌÀä0 , øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX( 7$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°ÒÑ` ` ÑÓÓÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑA‚k xxxxxx3|x›(¬(3T6$¤¤Ý ƒ 7!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÑ` °ÑÓÓÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ‡ˆ‰DŠD‹ŒDŽDÓ€›2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô****'ÿÿdxd2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d- ù-####7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ŽÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌò òMarchÏ14,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€"ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó $Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòHodgesóó€involved€a€retaliatory€discharge€occasioned€by€the€plaintiff's€juryÏservices.€€A€principal€issue€was€the€propriety€of€punitive€damages.€€The€SupremeÏCourt€availed€itself€of€òòHodges€óóto€re„examine€and€modify€the€manner€in€whichÏpunitive€damages€are€awarded€in€Tennessee,€to€the€end€that€unlimited€juryÏdiscretion€in€the€fixing€of€such€damages€may€be€curtailed.€€Many,€if€not€most,Ïactions€for€punitive€damages€allege€malice,€the€desire€to€harm€another,€whichÏòòHodgesóó€succinctly€addresses.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@ dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€!!X„d&ÓÑ#€!!Xd#ÑÔ€"ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÑ p ÑÑ€$ÑÑ7€†XXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÑ  ÑIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌ€WESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌó ó„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„ÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌò òRICHARD€J.€ROBERTS€ó óandò ò€ó óà àà à)à àÌò òELIZABETH€A.€ROBERTS,ó óà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àShelbyÏCircuit€No.€27981„2€T.DÌà àPlaintiffs/Appellantsà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌò òVS.ó óà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.€Ï02A01„9502„CV„00019Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌÙ€€Ùò òßL€&'%;+'h|’9` à. `€€LßFEDERAL€EXPRESS€CORPORATIONó ó,€)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àDefendant/Appelleeà àà à)à àÌò òòòÌÌóóÌÓ  Óó óAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€SHELBYÏCOUNTYÌAT€MEMPHIS,€TENNESSEEÌTHE€HONORABLE€JANICE€HOLDER,€JUDGEÌÓ  ÓÌÌò òLARRY€E.€PARRISHó óÌò òPARRISH,€SHAW€&€BRANDONó óÌ6075€Poplar€Ave.,€Ste.€420ÌMemphis,€TN€€38119„4763ÌAttorney€for€the€Plaintiff/AppellantÌÌò òCHARLES€W.€HILLà àà àà àROBERT€C.€VONÏOHLEN,€JR.ÌROBERT€B.C.€HALEà àà àà àJOHN€B.€AUSTINó óÌò òWARING€COXà àà àà àà àKAPLAN€&€BEGYó óÌ1300€Morgan€Keegan€Towerà àà àOne€First€NationalÏPlazaÌ50€North€Front€St.à àà àà àà à51st€FloorÌMemphis,€TN€€38103à àà àà àChicago,€IL€€60603ÌÌà àà àà àò òJAMES€R.€MULROY€IIó óÌ€€€€€€€€à àà àà àò òFEDERAL€EXPRESS€CORP.ó óÌà àà àà à1980€Nonconnah€Blvd.Ìà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€€38132Ìà àà àà àAttorneys€for€Defendant/AppelleeÌÌÌò òREVERSED€IN€PART,ÌAFFIRMED€IN€PART€ANDÌREMANDED€FOR€A€NEW€TRIALó óÌÌÌÓ  Óò òWILLIAM€H.€INMAN,€SENIOR€JUDGEÌÓ  ÓÌCONCUR:ÌÌW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEó óÌÌÌÌÓ  Óò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌó óóóÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThis€malicious€prosecution€action€involves€the€question€of€whether€theÏdefendant€had€probable€cause€to€institute€criminal€proceedings€against€the€plaintiff,Ïa€former€employee.Ìà àOn€motion€for€summary€judgment,€the€initial€trial€judge€said,€yes,€€probableÏcause€existed.€€So€did€this€Court.€€The€Supreme€Court€disagreed,€holding€that,Ï"Under€the€facts€presented,€reasonable€minds€could€differ€as€to€whether€probableÏcause€existed€for€bringing€charges€against€Plaintiff."€€òòRoberts€v.€Federal€ExpressÏCorp.óó,€842€S.W.2d€246,€249€(Tenn.€1992).€€The€case€was€thereupon€remanded€forÍtrial,€which€resulted€in€a€hung€jury.€€A€second€trial€resulted€in€verdicts€for€theÏplaintiffs€for€compensatory€damages,€and€a€finding€that€they€were€entitled€toÏpunitive€damages.Ìà àThe€defendant€filed€a€motion€for€judgment€NOV,€for€a€new€trial€and€for€aÏmistrial.€€The€trial€judge€filed€a€scholarly€and€quite€lucid€memorandum€which€weÏreproduce€verbatim:ÌÓÓÌà0 àà àUpon€all€the€evidence€presented€and€for€the€reasons€set€forth€hereinÏand€by€the€Court€when€ruling,€the€Court€finds€that€reasonable€minds€couldÏnot€differ€on€the€issue€of€probable€cause€and€could€only€conclude€that€theÏPlaintiffs€have€failed€to€meet€their€burden€to€prove€a€lack€of€probable€cause.€ÏAs€a€matter€of€law,€the€Court€directs€a€verdict€for€the€Defendant€becauseÏreasonable€minds€could€only€conclude€that€the€evidence€failed€to€show€thatÏthe€Defendant€acted€without€probable€cause.Ìà0 àà àUpon€all€the€evidence€presented€and€for€the€reasons€set€forth€hereinÏand€by€the€Court€when€ruling,€the€Court€directs€a€verdict€for€the€DefendantÏfinding,€as€a€matter€of€law,€that€reasonable€minds€could€not€differ€and€couldÏonly€conclude€that€the€Defendant€conducted€a€reasonable€investigationÏunder€the€circumstances.Ìà0 àà àUpon€all€the€evidence€presented€and€for€the€reasons€set€forth€hereinÏand€in€Its€ruling,€the€Court€further€finds€that€the€Plaintiffs€failed€to€proveÏliability€for€punitive€damages€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€inÏaccordance€with€the€standards€set€by€òòHodges€v.€S.C.€Toof€&€Companyóó,€833ÏS.W.2d€896€(Tenn.€1992)€and,€therefore,€directs€a€verdict€for€the€DefendantÏon€the€issue€of€liability€for€punitive€damages.€€The€Court€finds€thatÏreasonable€minds€could€not€conclude€that€the€evidence€in€this€case€provesÏliability€for€punitive€damages€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€The€CourtÏorders€that€a€directed€verdict€be€entered€for€the€Defendant€holding€it€notÏliable€for€punitive€damages€as€a€matter€of€law.Ìà àà àSince€the€claims€of€Plaintiff,€Elizabeth€Roberts,€are€derivative€only,€theÏà àCourt€further€directs€a€verdict€in€favor€of€the€Defendant€on€her€claims.Ìà0 àà àIn€the€event€the€directed€verdicts€constituting€this€judgment,€onÏappeal,€are€subsequently€vacated€or€reversed€in€part€or€in€whole,€the€CourtÏenters€the€following€conditional€ruling€on€the€Defendant's€Motion€for€MistrialÍand€new€trial€pursuant€to€Civil€Rules€50.03€and€59.€€As€a€conditional€rulingÏand€for€the€reasons€set€forth€herein€and€by€the€Court€when€ruling,€the€CourtÏfinds€that€the€defendant's€Motion€for€Mistrial€is€well€taken€and€grants€aÏconditional€new€trial€of€this€case.€€The€Court€finds€that€Plaintiffs'€counselÏmade€improper€arguments€at€the€close€of€the€liability€phase€of€this€caseÏwhich€served€to€inflame€and€bias€the€jury,€ultimately€affecting€the€fairness€ofÏthe€trial,€and€which€are€curable€only€by€granting€a€new€trial.€€The€Court€findsÏthat€Plaintiffs'€counsel€made€improper€arguments€to€the€jury€suggesting€thatÏthey€place€themselves€in€the€shoes€of€the€Plaintiff,€Richard€Roberts,€that€suchÏarguments€were€substantial€and€an€improper€solicitation€to€the€jury€forÏapplication€of€the€Golden€Rule€to€the€Plaintiffs.€€The€Court€conditionallyÏgrants€the€Defendant's€Motion€for€Mistrial€and€conditionally€orders€a€newÏtrial€based€on€the€improper€argument€of€Plaintiffs'€counsel.Ìà0 àà àAlternatively,€in€the€event€the€directed€verdicts€constituting€thisÏjudgment,€on€appeal,€are€subsequently€vacated€or€reversed€in€part€or€inÏwhole,€this€Court€enters€the€following€further€conditional€ruling.€€The€CourtÏfinds€that€the€jury's€verdicts€are€contrary€to€the€weight€of€the€evidence€andÏthat€the€evidence€introduced€at€the€trial€of€this€case€preponderates€in€favor€ofÏa€verdict€for€Federal€Express€on€all€of€the€Plaintiffs'€claims.€€The€CourtÏconditionally€grants€the€Defendant's€Motion€for€New€Trial€because€the€jury'sÏverdicts€are€contrary€to€the€weight€of€the€evidence.ÌÓÓÌà àThe€plaintiffs€insist€that€the€opinion€of€the€Supreme€Court€is€the€law€of€theÏcase.€€They€say€the€trial€judge€in€effect€overruled€the€Supreme€Court€and€wasÏwithout€authority€either€to€take€the€case€from€the€jury€or€later€to€direct€verdicts.€€TheÏdefendant€says€that€the€case€was€before€the€Supreme€Court€on€motion€forÏsummary€judgment€and€that€the€trial€judge€nevertheless€"retained€the€authority€toÏdetermine,€as€a€matter€of€law,€if€reasonable€minds€could€reach€a€differing€result€onÏthe€issue€of€probable€cause."Ìà àFor€a€recitation€of€the€evidence,€we€refer€to€the€prior€opinion€of€this€Court€andÏto€the€published€opinion€of€the€Supreme€Court.€€The€trial€judge,€in€announcing€theÍdirected€verdicts,€stated,€"The€evidence€in€this€case€does€not€materially€differ,€as€IÏsee€it€from€the€facts€the€Supreme€Court€set€forth."€€So€it€is€that€the€issue€of€probableÏcause€in€this€case€is€for€the€jury€to€decide,€òòRobertsóó,€òòsupraóó,€and€the€trial€judge€erredÏin€directing€verdicts.€€òòSee€Barger€v.€Brockóó,€535€S.W.2d€337€(Tenn.€1976).Ìà àBut€we€do€not€agree€with€the€plaintiff€that€the€verdicts€must€be€reinstated.€ÏThe€trial€judge,€who€was€acutely€aware€of€the€apparent€restrictions€on€her€functionÏto€determine€if€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€establish€probable€cause,€performedÏin€the€clearest€way€possible€her€role€as€thirteenth€juror.€€òòSee€Mize€v.€Skeenóó,€468ÏS.W.2d€733,€735€(Tenn.€App.€1971)€€She€disapproved€the€verdicts,€and€there€theÏmatter€ends.€€Further€elaboration€seems€unnecessary.Ìà àWe€also€agree€that€the€argument€of€Plaintiffs'€counsel€justified€the€mistrial.€ÏWe€reproduce€the€objectionable€portion:ÌÓÓÌà0 àà àThe€humiliation,€the€embarrassment.€€Yeah,€go€on€down€to€the€jailÏsometime€if€you€don't€have€anything€to€do€and€get€strip€searched.€€Have€yourÏbody€cavities€searched.€€That's€a€good€Sunday€afternoon€activity.Ìà0 àà àHow€much€do€I€pay€you€if€I€said,€look,€come€on,€you€will€like€it.€€HowÏmuch€would€you€take€just€for€that?Ìà0 àà à.€.€.€€Now,€what€if€I€just€made€a€deal€with€you.€€I€say€to€you€now,€here€isÏmy€deal:€€You€can€tell€me€however€much€you€want€me€to€pay€you€and€I€willÏpay€you€that€amount€of€money.€€But€this€is€what€you€got€to€do.€€You€got€to€letÏme€bring€charges€against€you€for€grand€larceny.Ìà0 àà à.€.€.€Malice?€€Malice?€€I€suggest€to€you€they€didn't€have€anyÏexpectation€that€this€man€would€be€convicted.€€They€didn't€have€anyÏexpectation.€€It's€sort€of€like€punishment.€€Throw€him€out€there€and€put€him€inÏthe€system€and€let€it€grind€him€up€a€little€bit.€€And€we€will€teach€him€a€lesson.€ÏAnd€we€will€teach€all€the€other€employees€there€a€lesson,€too.Ìà0 àà àSo„„the€real€thing.€€If€they€will€do€this€to€Richard€Roberts,€who€is€veryÏpopular€there,€been€one€of€the€longest€employees€at€that€place,€and€theÏmessage€goes€out,€if€they€will€do€that€to€Richard€Roberts,€and€I€am€just€theÏhandler,€a€part€time€employee,€what€in€the€world€will€they€do€with€me?€€GrindÏhim€up€a€little€bit.ÌÓÓÌòòSee€Prewitt„Spurr€Mfg.€Co.€v.€Woodallóó,€115€Tenn.€605,€90€S.W.2d€623€(1905);ÏòòKlein€v.€Elliotóó,€436€S.W.2d€867,€880€(Tenn.€App.€1968).€€These€Golden€RuleÏarguments,€so„called,€are€inflammatory,€as€they€are€intended€to€be,€and€inevitablyÏwill€destroy€the€verdict.€€òòSee€City€of€Gallatin€v.€Jacksonóó,€1991€WL€1051€(Tenn.€App.Ï1991);€€òòGray€v.€Bernardóó,€1992€WL€52697€(Tenn.€App.€1992).Ìà àFinally,€we€agree€that€the€trial€judge€properly€directed€a€verdict€on€the€issueÏof€punitive€damages,€because€of€the€rigid€requirements€of€òòHodges€v.€S.C.€Toof€&ÏCo.óó,€833€S.W.2d€896,€900„902€(Tenn.€1992),€which€restricts€awards€of€punitiveÏdamages€to€cases€involving€the€"most€egregious€of€wrongs."€€òòHodgesóó,€833€S.W.2dÏat€901.€€This€is€not€such€a€case.Ìà àIn€order€to€restrict€the€awarding€of€punitive€damages€to€cases€involving€theÏmost€egregious€of€€wrongs,€òòHodgesóó€holds€that€punitive€damages€can€be€assessedÏonly€if€"a€defendant€has€acted€either€(1)€intentionally,€(2)€fraudulently,€(3)Ïmaliciously,€or€(4)€recklessly."€€òòId.óó€€But€the€Court€went€further:ÌÓÓÌà0 àà à.€.€.Because€punitive€damages€are€to€be€awarded€only€in€the€mostÏegregious€of€cases,€a€plaintiff€must€prove€the€defendant's€intentional,Ïfraudulent,€malicious,€or€reckless€conduct€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€ÏòòId.óóÌÓÓÌThe€court€defined€"clear€and€convincing€evidence"€as€"evidence€in€which€there€isÏno€serious€or€substantial€doubt€about€the€correctness€of€the€conclusions€drawnÏfrom€the€evidence.€€òòId.óóÌà àThere€is€no€clear€and€convincing€evidence€of€any€of€the€conduct€set€forth€inÏòòHodgesóó.Ìà àThe€plaintiff€offered€no€evidence€of€a€deliberate€intent€to€harm€him.€€It€isÏestablished€that€"the€action€of€the€prosecutor€is€not€malicious€although€it€may€beÏinfluenced€to€some€extent€by€other€and€forbidden€considerations,"€and€"a€desire€toÏdeter€others€from€committing€crime€by€making€an€example€of€the€offender€is€aÏproper€motive."€€òòCohen€v.€Fergusonóó,€336€S.W.2d€949,€953„54€(Tenn.€App.€1959).€ÏThe€defendant's€decision€to€refer€the€matter€to€the€police€on€the€basis€that€itsÏreasonable€investigation€and€belief€in€Roberts'€guilt€so€justified€is€not€equatable€toÏthe€kind€of€criminal€intent€the€òòHodgesóó€court€(citing€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.óó€ðð€39„11„302(a)(1991)'s€definition€of€criminal€intentionality)€had€in€mind.€€The€referral€to€theÏpolice€seemingly€was€justified€and€necessitated€by€the€defendant's€legitimateÏdesire€to€protect€its€customers'€property.€€We€believe€the€defendant's€need€to€deterÏemployees€from€stealing€the€articles€entrusted€to€it€matches€the€defendant's€desireÏin€òòCohen€óó€to€deter€people€from€taking€parts€from€his€junkyard.Ìà àThe€plaintiff€makes€no€claim€that€the€defendant€acted€fraudulently,€and€thereÏis€no€evidence€that€it€was€"motivated€by€ill€will,€hatred€or€personal€spite,"€as€isÏrequired€for€a€finding€of€malice.€€òòHodgesóó,€833€S.W.2d€at€901.× ƒ( ××  ×€Ìà àThe€judgment€is€reversed€in€part,€affirmed€in€part€and€remanded€to€the€trialÏcourt.€€Costs€are€assessed€evenly€to€the€parties.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€H.€Inman,€Senior€JudgeÌÌÌConcur:ÌÌÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌW.€Frank€Crawford,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌDavid€R.€Farmer,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ