Net is cut to $2.7M to 2 suers of retailer

State appellate judges Wednesday cut $500,000 from a $3.25 million judgment awarded two mechanics who successfully sued after being accused of theft by their former employer, Family Dollar.

On Wednesday, the Arkansas Court of Appeals upheld a $2.75 million judgment by a Crittenden County Circuit Court jury for former employees Jimmy Huff and Robert Ward in a civil suit decided in February 2014. However, the Appeals Court sided with Family Dollar attorneys and reversed the additional $250,000 awarded each man by the jury under the tort of outrage. A tort is a wrong that is grounds for a civil lawsuit.

“This tort does not make actionable every ‘insult or indignity one must endure in life,’” Court of Appeals Judge Bart Virden wrote in his majority opinion, “but instead provides a basis for recovery only for ‘ conduct that is so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized society.’ ”

The accusations made by

Family Dollar administrators to law enforcement — that the two men knowingly sold off company equipment — did not rise to that “atrocious” standard, according to Virden.

Austin Porter Jr., an attorney for the two former mechanics, said it was a good ruling. Although his clients lost some money, the interest on the other $2.75 million over the past year will help cover the loss, he said.

“My clients are extremely pleased,” Porter said. “I think it was a very well-written opinion, and we’re pleased in the outcome.”

The attorney for Family Dollar didn’t return a phone call seeking comment.

According to court records, Ward began working for Family Dollar in 1998 and Huff in 1996. The two worked out of the company’s distribution center in West Memphis.

They often inspected trailers, and they were under the supervision of Dennis Stripling around 2005 and 2006 when he told the men they could buy the defunct trailers and resell them if the units didn’t meet company safety standards, according to court documents.

The men sold the trailers and gave some of the money to Stripling, who was supposed to give the money back to the company, records show. According to Family Dollar, Stripling never compensated the company for the sold trailers.

After a company investigator handed over findings to local law enforcement, both Huff and Ward were arrested and charged with theft of property, but the prosecutor eventually dropped the charges. Stripling pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of theft and has made restitution.

In 2009, the two former employees

filed suit against Family Dollar Inc., Family Dollar Trucking Inc. and Family Dollar Services Inc.

In their lawsuit, the employees said Family Dollar knew that they were innocent of theft and that their job losses, prosecution and the fallout from the case caused them “to suffer mental anguish, humiliation and emotional distress.”

After a week-long trial, the jury found that the men were due damages because of malicious prosecution, as well as under the tort of outrage. The company’s attorneys appealed in July 2014.

According to Virden’s opinion, the jury rightfully believed that Family Dollar didn’t relay all of the findings of its investigator to law enforcement and that the company had no written policies on selling unusable equipment.

In a dissenting opinion, Appeals Court Judge Ken Hixson wrote that Huff and Ward failed to show enough evidence to prove they were maliciously prosecuted.

Judge Brandon Harrison, in a separate dissent, said Huff and Ward demonstrated they were wrongfully accused of a crime but he thought the $2.75 million award was too high.

“A damages award is not a lottery ticket,” Harrison wrote. “I would substantially reduce the judgment and bring it in line with the proof because, in my view, Huff and Ward hit the lottery.”

Virden took exception to the “lottery” comparison.

“Such a statement is dismissive of the jury and the circuit judge who heard the testimony and observed the witnesses in the case,” Virden wrote. “The court’s conscience is never shocked when a jury returns a verdict of $0.00. … We cannot say that the verdict demonstrates passion or prejudice on the part of the jury or shocks the conscience of this court.”