## Facts

- Dr. Robert W. Peete, an otolaryngologist, treated a hospitalized patient for a severe nosebleed using anterior and posterior nasal packing.
- On December 26, 1983, Peete returned to the hospital during a medical emergency after the posterior pack’s securing string had been cut and the patient was bleeding heavily, creating a risk of suffocation.
- To retrieve the posterior pack, Peete needed a suction machine to clear blood from the patient’s throat to see and proceed.
- Beverly S. Blackwell, the nurse in charge of the floor, assisted Peete during the emergency.
- Blackwell testified that Peete struck her forearm and demanded that she turn on the suction; she testified that the strike caused no physical injury.
- Blackwell presented additional evidence of Peete’s prior abusive behavior toward hospital staff (yelling, cursing, insulting staff, and throwing objects).
- Blackwell sued for assault and battery, seeking $1 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages.
- A jury awarded Blackwell $1 in compensatory damages and $10,000 in punitive damages; judgment was entered on the verdict.
- Peete’s post-trial motions (JNOV, new trial, and alter/amend/remittitur) were denied by operation of law when the trial court did not rule within the prescribed period.
- On appeal, Peete did not contest liability for assault and battery; he challenged only the propriety and amount of punitive damages and the denial of post-trial relief.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported an award of punitive damages for assault and battery where the plaintiff proved an offensive touching but no physical injury.
2. Whether the $10,000 punitive damages award (with $1 compensatory damages) was so excessive or improper that the verdict should have been disturbed through JNOV, a new trial, or remittitur/alteration.
3. Whether the trial court’s refusal (including by operation of law) to grant post-trial relief constituted reversible error.

## Decision

- The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Blackwell.
- The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support punitive damages for assault and battery.
- The court held that the punitive damages award was not excessive under the applicable standard of review.
- The court found no basis to reverse based on the denial of Peete’s post-trial motions.

## Legal Principles

- Punitive damages may be awarded in an assault and battery action when the defendant’s conduct reflects malice, willfulness, or wanton and reckless disregard for the rights of others.
- Physical injury is not a prerequisite to punitive damages in an intentional-tort battery claim; the focus is the character of the act and the defendant’s culpable state of mind.
- Appellate review of punitive damages is highly deferential; a jury’s award will not be set aside absent a clear showing that it is plainly excessive or the product of passion, prejudice, or other improper motive.
- Emergency circumstances may provide context but do not excuse an intentional, offensive touching that satisfies the elements of battery; the jury may consider surrounding conduct and related behavior when assessing punitive damages.
- A post-trial motion denied by operation of law does not change the substantive standards for evaluating the sufficiency of evidence or the propriety of the damages award on appeal.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a punitive damages award for a battery committed during a medical emergency, concluding that the evidence permitted a finding of willful or wanton misconduct and that $10,000 in punitive damages, despite only nominal compensatory damages, was not excessive or improper.


Peete v. Blackwell, 504 So. 2d 222 (Ala. 1986)