Doroszka v. Lavine

• Decision Date: 13 June 1930
• Citation: 150 A. 692,111 Conn. 575
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: DOROSZKA v. LAVINE (TWO CASES).

150 A. 692

111 Conn. 575

DOROSZKA v. LAVINE (TWO CASES).

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 13, 1930

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Frederick M. Peasley Judge.

Two separate actions by Vincent Doroszka against I. Harry Lavine to recover for damages for criminal conversation with the plaintiff's wife and for malicious prosecution, tried together to the jury. Verdict for the plaintiff for $20,000 in the former case, and for $26,025 in the latter, both of which verdicts were set aside, and plaintiff appeals.

Error in not ordering remittiturs.

The plaintiff, who was the only witness called, testified that he was a medical student and lived with his wife in an apartment in New Haven. One evening, on arriving home, he found the defendant in a compromising situation with his wife. The defendant offered him money to settle the matter, but he refused and went out with Lavine to find a policeman, meeting defendant's chauffeur, who hit him on the head with a hammer. Later, at the police station, an officer, in the presence of Lavine, said to him: " If you say this is blackmail you can get out of town, but if you don't say this is blackmail Mr. Lavine will put you in jail for ten years." Upon his refusal to make this admission he was arrested and imprisoned from the evening of December 15th (1928) until noon of December 17th, when he was released on bail. Later he was tried in the city court on charges of blackmail and conspiracy and acquitted. He has since declined to become reconciled with his wife, although she solicited him to do so.

John Henry Sheehan and Harry L. Edlin, both of New Haven, for appellant.

John M. Chapnick, of New Haven, for appellee.

Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and MALTBIE, HAINES, HINMAN, and BANKS JJ.

HINMAN, J. (after stating the facts as above).

The trial court, on motion, set each verdict aside. Error in so doing is the only assignment on these appeals. It suffices to say, without recital of details thereof, that the evidence although consisting only of the testimony of the plaintiff was ample to warrant a verdict in his favor in each case. It is manifest, however, that both verdicts were grossly excessive in the amount of damages awarded, and the trial court was correct in setting them aside on that ground. Few verdicts approaching such amounts have been rendered, in this jurisdiction, in actions of tort, however grievous and extensive the injuries involved. The awards here vastly exceed those hitherto made in Connecticut cases of this kind. Seidler v. Burns, 84 Conn. 112, 79 A. 53, 33 L.R.A. (N. S.) 291; Id., 86 Conn. 249, 85 A. 369, Ann.Cas. 1916C, 226; McGann v. Allen, 105 Conn. 177, 134 A. 810; Zitkov v. Zaleski, 102 Conn. 439, 128 A. 779; Shea v. Berry, 93 Conn. 475, 106 A. 761; Verdi v. Donahue, 91 Conn. 448, 99 A. 1041; Hammond v. Rowley, 86 Conn. 6, 84 A. 94; Gray v. Fanning, 73 Conn. 115, 46 A. 831; Valentine v. Pollak, 95 Conn. 556, 111 A. 869; Sheffield v. Beckwith, 90 Conn. 94, 96 A. 316; Hart v. Knapp, 76 Conn. 135, 55 A. 1021, 100 Am.St.Rep. 989; Noxon v. Remington, 78 Conn. 296, 61 A. 963. Comparison of the facts in these cases and the awards therein with those in the present instance, with due consideration of recent developments including the diminished purchasing power of money, discloses no logical or legitimate justification for verdicts for the amounts awarded in the present cases.

Extending our investigation to other jurisdictions, we find few cases in which verdicts of such amount have been sustained, and that notwithstanding prevalence of the common-law doctrine permitting the award of punitive damages, in amount practically at the discretion of the jury, while in this state the purpose is not to punish the defendant for his offense but to compensate the plaintiff for his injuries, and so-called punitive or exemplary damages cannot exceed the amount of the plaintiff's expenses of litigation, less taxable costs. Hassett v. Carroll, 85 Conn. 23, 28, 81 A. 1013, Ann.Cas. 1913A, 333; Hanna v. Sweeney, 78 Conn. 492, 494, 62 A. 785, 4 L.R.A. (N. S.) 907; Maisenbacker v. Society Concordia, 71 Conn. 369, 378, 42 A. 67, 71 Am.St.Rep. 213. See cases collected 38 Corpus Juris, p. 450, Malicious Prosecution, § 103, notes 83, 84; 30 Corpus Juris, p. 1166, Husband and Wife (Criminal Conversation), § 1068, notes 65, 66; Hargraves v. Ballou, 47 R.I. 186, 131 A. 643.

The trial court, in setting aside the verdicts, expressed the opinion that the jury were influenced to return verdicts of such size by their reaction to the plaintiff's story of the defendant's treatment of him immediately following the discovery of defendant's relations with the plaintiff's wife. Whether this is the true explanation and the jury, although presumably correctly instructed as to the assessment of damages, since the charge is not complained of, yielded to an inclination to punish the defendant in addition to compensating the plaintiff for the damages to which he had proven that he was fairly entitled, is not of controlling importance. It is obvious that sympathy prejudice, or other inadmissible considerations or incentives led them to...