Beck v. Thompson.
| Decision Date | 15 September 1888 |
| Parties | Beck v. Thompson. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
In an action for trespass for an assault and battery damages can not be recovered for the purpose of punishing the defendant, but for compensation for the injury done by him; and in considering the quantum of damages the jury have a right to consider not only the physical injury and physical suffering, and expenses and loss of time and wages, but also the mental anguish, shame and dishonor suffered by the injured party, (p. 458.)
In such an action an instruction that, "if the jury believe from the evidence that the assault in the declaration mentioned was committed by defendant, the plaintiff is only entitled to compensation for such injuries as, he may have shown from the evidence, were caused by the assault, they will not award punitive, vindictive, or exemplary damages," was properly refused, because it does not propound the law correctly and is misleading, (p. 459.)
A new trial will not be granted on account of the disqualification of a juror for matter that is a principal cause of challenge, which existed before he was elected and sworn as a juror, but which was unknown to the party until after the trial, and which could not have been discovered by the exercise of ordinary diligence, unless it appears from the whole case, made before the court on the motion for a new trial, that the party suffered injustice from the fact that such juror served in the trial of the case. (p. 461.)
A juror served in the trial of a case, when under the statute he was disqualified by reason of the fact that he had a similar case ready for trial in the same court. The counsel for the defendant, after the juror was swrorn and before verdict, knew he was disqualified and moved for anew trial on that ground, and it did not appear, that the defendant had been injured by the fact that said juror served on the jury. Held, no ground for a new trial, (p. 461.)
W. H. Travers for plaintiff in error.
C. Baylor for defendant in error.
Johnson, President:
This is an action of trespass, brought in the Circuit Court of Jefferson county in January, 1886, for an assault and battery committed by the defendant upon the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded not guilty, and on trial of the issue the jury rendered a verdict for $250.00 damages. The defendant moved for a new trial, which motion was overruled, and judgment entered on the verdict. The defendant saved two bills of exceptions, the first, to the refusal to give an instruction; the second, to the refusal of the court to set aside the verdict, and grant a new trial. A writ of error and supersedeas was granted the defendant.
The first error assigned is that the court refused to give the following instruction:" If the jury believe from the evidence that the assault in the declaration mentioned was committed by the defendant, the plaintiff is only entitled to compensation for such injuries as he may have shown from the evidence were caused by the said assault, they will not award punitive, vindictive, or exemplary damages." The rule as to the kind of damages a party is entitled to recover in an action for seduction, was announced by this Court in Riddle v. McGinnis, 22 W. Va. 253, that " the jury in estimating the damages sustained by the plaintiff may take into considera tion the mental anguish, the dishonor and shame endured by the plaintiff, as well as the actual expenses incurred by reason of the wrongful act of the defendant." That was an action for seduction, in which there was no physical suffering; but in an action for assault and battery, in addition to the physical injury and suffering endured by the plaintiff, he also would suffer mental anguish, because of the dishonor and shame, and for all these he would be entitled to be compensated in damages.
In Pegram v. Strotz, supra-, p. 220 (6 S. E. Rep. 485,) decided by this Court February 28, 1888, after quoting the provision of the statute, that "an action may be maintained * * * by a wife against the person selling or furnishing such spirituous liquors, as well as for all such damages as the plaintiff has sustained by reason of the selling or giving such liquors, as for exemplary damages," it was held that "by exemplary damages is meant, not additional damages, given as a punishment of the defendant for selling intoxicating liquors to her husband illegally, but damages which shall not only compensate her for injury to her means of support, but also, in a proper case, damages which shall compensate her for her mental anguish." In this last case, the doctrine, that in a civil case punitive, vindictive or exemplary damages can be imposed as a mere punishment to the defendant, is repudiated. But it by no means follows that in an action for an injury wantonly inflicted by one person upon another the damages are confined to the mere making good the pecuniary loss which the injured party has suffered, as his loss of wages for the time he was disabled, and the expenses of nursing and medical attendance, for he is not only entitled to recover for these, but for the physical injury received and the physical suffering endured; but the jury may in addition to this compensate him for the mental anguish, shame and dishonor which he has suffered.
In this case the instruction was that the plaintiff was "only entitled to compensation for such...
To continue reading
Request your trial