## Facts

- Tony Mason owned a Huntsville, Alabama restaurant and lounge and led a band.
- In 1980, Mason created a mixed drink later called “Lynchburg Lemonade,” made from Jack Daniel’s whiskey, Triple Sec, sweet and sour mix, and 7-Up.
- The drink became highly profitable for Mason’s business, allegedly accounting for a substantial portion of alcohol sales.
- Mason sought to keep the recipe confidential by limiting disclosure to bartenders, instructing them not to disclose it, and requiring preparation out of customers’ view.
- In February 1982, Winston Randle, a sales representative for Jack Daniel Distillery, visited Mason’s establishment, drank the beverage, and learned the recipe; testimony conflicted as to who disclosed it.
- Mason testified he disclosed part of the recipe in reliance on Randle’s promise that Mason and his band would be used in advertising and promotion.
- Randle reported the drink to superiors, and about a year later the defendants developed a national promotional campaign for “Lynchburg Lemonade.”
- Mason alleged the defendants used the recipe in promotion without using him or his band and without compensation.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to submit to the jury the question whether Mason’s drink recipe constituted a trade secret, making denial of a directed verdict proper.
2. Whether the trial court erred by limiting recovery to nominal damages and refusing to instruct the jury on punitive damages.

## Decision

- The appellate court held there was sufficient evidence for a jury to determine whether the recipe was a trade secret, so a directed verdict for defendants was properly denied.
- The appellate court held the trial court erred by instructing that only nominal damages could be awarded despite evidence supporting actual damages.
- The appellate court held the trial court erred by refusing to give a punitive-damages instruction where the evidence, if credited, could support a finding of willful, malicious, fraudulent, or recklessly indifferent conduct.
- Judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings.

## Legal Principles

- Whether information such as a recipe or formula qualifies as a trade secret generally presents a factual question for the jury when there is evidence of secrecy measures and economic value from secrecy.
- A case should not be removed from the jury by directed verdict when the plaintiff presents substantial evidence supporting trade-secret status.
- A trial court may not restrict the jury to nominal damages when the evidence would permit an award of compensatory damages.
- Punitive damages may be submitted to the jury when evidence would allow a finding that the defendant acted with malice, fraud, willfulness, or reckless disregard of the plaintiff’s rights.

## Conclusion

The court required that the trade-secret claim remain for the jury and that the jury be allowed to consider compensatory damages and, if supported by the evidence, punitive damages, reversing the nominal-damages judgment and remanding for further proceedings.


Mason v. Jack Daniel Distillery, 518 So. 2d 130 (Ala. Civ. App. 1987)