Williamson-Green v. Equipment 4 Rent, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-023-16)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 15-P-114 Appeals Court MICHELLE WILLIAMSON-GREEN, administratrix,[1] vs. EQUIPMENT 4 RENT, INC. No. 15-P-114. Suffolk. November 3, 2015. – March 3, 2016. Present: Kafker, C.J., Vuono, & Hanlon, JJ. Negligence, Gross negligence. Damages, Punitive. Practice, Civil, Directed verdict, Judgment notwithstanding verdict. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on April 24, 2009. The case was tried before Janet L. Sanders, J., and a motion for a new trial or for remittitur was heard by her. Thomas F. Maffei (Margaret C. Kelty with him) for the defendant. Joan A. Lukey for the plaintiff. KAFKER, C.J. James Williamson was perched more than one hundred feet high on a boom lift, inspecting the roof of a university building in Boston, when the machine tipped over and crashed into a neighboring building, killing him. The boom lift had been manufactured by Grove U.S., LLC (Grove), and rented from the defendant Equipment 4 Rent, Inc. (E4R). Williamson’s wife, Michelle Williamson-Green, as administratrix of Williamson’s estate, successfully sued Grove and E4R for damages associated with her husband’s wrongful death. The jury found that negligence of Grove and of E4R each was “a direct and substantial factor in causing the death of Mr. Williamson.” The jury also found that “E4R’s conduct [was] grossly negligent, wilful, wanton, or reckless.” The jury awarded $ 3,692,657.40 in compensatory damages against E4R and Grove, together with $ 5,900,000 in punitive damages solely against E4R. The trial judge denied E4R’s motions for a directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict,[2] judgment entered, and E4R appeals, claiming only that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s award of punitive damages.[3] We affirm. Background. In considering an appeal of “[t]he denial of a motion for directed verdict or a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict[, we must review the record] under the same standard used by the trial judge[,] . . . constru[ing] the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and disregard[ing] that favorable to the moving party.” O’Brien v. Pearson, 449 Mass. 377, 383 (2007). See Christopher v. Father’s Huddle Café, Inc., 57 Mass. App. Ct. 217, 219 (2003). “Our duty in this regard is to evaluate whether ‘anywhere in the evidence, from whatever source derived, any combination of circumstances could be found from which a reasonable inference could be […]