Coleman v. Pepper

• Decision Date: 02 April 1909
• Citation: 49 So. 310,159 Ala. 310
• Parties: COLEMAN v. PEPPER.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

49 So. 310

159 Ala. 310

COLEMAN v. PEPPER.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 2, 1909

Appeal from Circuit Court, Limestone County; D. W. Speake, Judge.

Action by Mattie B. Coleman against La Fayette P. Pepper. A judgment for plaintiff was set aside, and a new trial granted, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Erle Pettus and James E. Horton, Jr., for appellant.

W. R Walker, for appellee.

DENSON J.

That exemplary damages are recoverable in this class of actions when the acts complained of are attended with aggravating circumstances of wantonness or malice, cannot longer be a debatable question in this jurisdiction. Mitchell v Billingsley, 17 Ala. 391; De Vaughn v. Heath, 37 Ala. 595; Rosser v. Bunn, 66 Ala. 89; Western Union, etc., Co. v. Dickens, 148 Ala. 480, 41 So. 469. The jury awarded the plaintiff damages to the amount of $311 and there can be no doubt that exemplary damages were assessed. On motion made by the defendant, the verdict was set aside, on the grounds that the damages were excessive and that the court erred in giving a charge requested by the plaintiff. The charge referred to is in this language: "I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, if you find that the defendant did trespass on the lands of the plaintiff, and if you further find that he did it in a wanton and willful manner, then you are not confined to the assessment of the actual damages sustained, but you may go further and assess punitive damages, not exceeding $1,200." It is argued that this charge is erroneous, as giving the jury a discretionary power in the assessment of damages, "without stint or limit, and without any rule whatever."

Punitive damages, being apart from compensation are not recoverable as a matter of right. Their imposition is discretionary with the jury. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Bizzell, 131 Ala. 429, 30 So. 777; 12 Am. & Eng. Ency. p. 51, and cases cited in notes to the text. And this discretion is not an unbridled or arbitrary one, but a legal, sound, and honest discretion; and, after instructing the jury in respect to the elements which must be found to exist to warrant the assessment of such damages, in submitting to the jury the question of imposing punitive damages, the court should always safeguard the submission with such instructions as that the jury will not be misguided, but will be held mindful, in fixing such damages, that they should act with due regard to the enormity or not of the wrong, and to the necessity of preventing similar wrongs, and that, if such damages are imposed, they should be in such an amount (much or little) as, under all the circumstances attending the commission of the wrong, the exigencies of the case, in the sound judgment and discretion of the jury, may demand, in no event to exceed the amount claimed in the complaint. L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Bizzell, supra; 12 Am. & Eng. Ency. p....