Bergdorf v. Chandler, 4-9816
| Decision Date | 09 June 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 4-9816,4-9816 |
| Parties | BERGDORF v. CHANDLER. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
J. B. Milham and C. A. Fuller, Eureka Springs, for appellant.
Festus O. Butt, Eureka Springs, for appellee.
Appellant, Edna Bergdorf, sued appellee, Ida Chandler, in Circuit Court for damages alleged to have been sustained by appellant as a result of an assault and battery committed by appellee. Appellant asked for compensatory damages in the sum of $2,500 and exemplary damages in a like amount. As an element of damage appellant proved that, as a result of appellee's attack, her spectacles were broken, the damage amounting to $17.50 for repairs thereto, $2 to the optometrist, and $10 expended for the trip to the optometrist, making a total of $29.50, which was the amount of the verdict returned by the jury. Nothing was allowed for pain and suffering, and a verdict was returned for the defendant on the issue of exemplary damages.
Appellant testified that without any warning appellee struck her in the face with a large pocketbook. Appellee denied she struck appellant with a pocketbook but frankly admitted slapping her. Appellee testified as follows:
'
As an additional reason for her action, Mrs. Chandler testified that in the month of June, before the attack occurred in September, she had some litigation against her step-son and Mrs. Bergdorf had 'butted into' the case. She testified:
As evidence of provocation in mitigation of damages, Mrs. Chandler, appellee, over the exceptions and objections of Mrs. Bergdorf, appellant, proved by the witness Britten Baker that one Albert Hays, brother-in-law of appellant, had informed Baker that Mrs. Chandler was throwing tin cans on Baker's place, (which she had permission to do) and that Baker had told Mrs. Chandler of receiving this information.
In urging the admissibility of this testimony in the trial court, counsel for appellee stated the evidence was material because it tended to show provocation; otherwise, the evidence was admitted on the theory that it went to the mitigation of damages. Thus, the jury was permitted to consider the fact that Mrs. Bergdorf's brother-in-law had given some information to Britten Baker about Mrs. Chandler placing tin cans on Baker's property as a justification for the admitted attack Mrs. Chandler made on Mrs. Bergdorf. There was no showing that Mrs. Bergdorf knew anything about the giving of such information, which had been conveyed to Mrs. Chandler about one week before the attack. What Mrs. Bergdorf's brother-in-law said about the tin cans would not be a provocation recognized in law as going to mitigation of damages suffered by reason of an assault and battery committed upon Mrs. Bergdorf.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- City of Stuttgart v. Elms, 4-9813
-
Williams v. Farmers and Merchants Insurance Co.
...not required to be given, but upon certain facts the court or jury is authorized to award them at their discretion. Bergdorf v. Chandler, 220 Ark. 727, 249 S.W.2d 562 (1952); and St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Stamps, 84 Ark. 241, 104 S.W. 1114 (1907). See, Prosser, Law of Torts, 13 (3d e......
-
Bookout v. Hanshaw, 5-2849
...was raised by the testimony, as is true in this case. It is insisted that 'mere words never justify an assault', citing Bergdorf v. Chandler, 220 Ark. 727, 249 S.W.2d 562. That case, however, is distinguished from this case on the facts. Here, there was more than words--there is testimony o......
-
Toney v. Haskins
...as to make their allowance proper. The allowance of such damages rests within the discretion of the trier of fact. Bergdorf v. Chandler, 220 Ark. 727, 249 S.W.2d 562 (1952). Assuming that the evidence would have supported an award for punitive damages, it is noted that in the amended and su......