Finney v. Lockhart
| Decision Date | 19 April 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. L,L |
| Citation | 35 Cal.2d 161,217 P.2d 19 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | FINNEY v. LOCKHART. A. 21189. |
Howlett & Elson and Eugene M. Elson, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Richard K. Gandy and Robert G. Cockins, Santa Monica, for respondent.
This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment entered on a verdict awarding $1.00 general and $2,000 exemplary damages. The question presented is the asserted excessiveness of the award of exemplary damages. The appeal is taken on the judgment roll. To obtain a review of the claim of excess by this method the defendant concedes that the factual allegations in the complaint are true. Originally other defendants were joined, but the action as to them was dismissed on their motion for nonsuit after the plaintiff rested. The trial continued and the case was submitted to the jury as against the defendant Lockhart alone. The alleged facts will be stated briefly to indicate the nature of the action as against him.
The plaintiff conducted a retail pet food merchandising business known as Boulevard Dog Food Store in the city of Santa Monica, Los Angeles county. He had a good reputation and a large patronage. The defendant operated the Canine Butcher Shop in the same county as a competitor of the plaintiff. For the purpose of injuring and destroying the plaintiff's business and his good reputation as a merchant, the defendant illegally and maliciously initiated and carried on a campaign through the use of artifice, intimidation, intrigue and defamation to cause purchasers of dog food in the vicinity to believe and understand that the plaintiff sold meat from slaughtered sick and diseased horses, that the meat sold by him was unfit for canine consumption, and that he was unworthy of patronage. The defendant's utterances to customers and the public were by both printed circulars and word of mouth. Specific instances and examples of the published utterances were alleged. The complaint contains allegations of malice and ill-will of the defendant, the falsity of his published statements, and facts as to the claimed damages to the plaintiff's business, reputation and feelings. The plaintiff sought both compensatory and exemplary damages. The defendant moved for a new trial on the ground among others of excessive exemplary damages appearing to have been given under the influence of passion and prejudice. The motion was denied.
Section 3294 of the Civil Code permits the recovery of exemplary damages in actions for breach of an obligation not arising from contract where the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. Such damages are in addition to the actual damages and are given for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.
It is not questioned that this is a proper case for the recovery of exemplary in addition to general damages. The code provision does not specify the proportion which the exemplary must maintain to the general damages. It is the defendant's contention that the decisional law of the state is that exemplary damages must bear a reasonable proportion to the actual damages awarded. He states that a review of the cases where the amount of exemplary damages has been declared excessive and a reduction ordered indicates an approved proportion of not in excess of five to one. He urges that this court should declare the award of exemplary damages in the ratio of 2000 to 1 to be excessive; that the amount of exemplary damages should be reduced to the sum of $5.00, or that the judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial on the issue of exemplary damages alone with a direction that they should bear some reasonable proportion to the amount of actual damages awarded.
The difficulty with the defendant's position is that it oversimplifies the question. There is no applicable rule which would justify the result sought, at least in the absence of an opportunity afforded to the appellate court to review the entire record including the evidence, the rulings on the admission and rejection of evidence, and the instructions to the jury.
The plaintiff was not entitled to exemplary damages as of right. The award was in the discretion of the jury upon finding compensatory damages, where evidence of malice was also present. The verdict implied a finding that the plaintiff sustained actual damages. The award of exemplary damages confirmed the plaintiff's allegations of malice. In an action for damages for defamation per se, which is the essence of this action, the law presumes general damages, and it has been declared unnecessary to segregate the exact or any proportion between the two classes of damages. Clark v. McClurg, 215 Cal. 279, 9 P.2d 505, 81 A.L.R. 908; McConathy v. Deck, 34 Colo. 461, 83 P. 135; State ex rel. St. Joseph Belt R. Co. v. Shain, 341 Mo. 733, 108 S.W.2d 351, $1.00 nominal damages, $4,000 exemplary damages; Edwards...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCoy v. Hearst Corp.
... ... National General Corp., supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 64, 118 Cal.Rptr. 184, 529 P.2d 608; Finney v. Lockhart (1950) 35 Cal.2d 161, 164, 217 P.2d 19; Moranville v. Aletto, supra, 153 Cal.App.2d at pp. 672-673, 315 P.2d 91.) "[T]he more ... ...
-
Devlin v. Kearny Mesa AMC/Jeep/Renault, Inc.
...and for the trial court on a new trial motion. All presumptions favor the correctness of the verdict and judgment. (Finney v. Lockhart (1950) 35 Cal.2d 161, 164, 217 P.2d 19.) While the trial court's determination is not binding upon a reviewing court, it must be accorded great weight. (Moo......
-
Wyatt v. Union Mortgage Co.
...damages is enough to accomplish this purpose in a particular case is not susceptible of mathematical definition. (Finney v. Lockhart (1950) 35 Cal.2d 161, 164, 217 P.2d 19.) In the present case, the concealment from borrowers of the company policy regarding "late charges" comprised the core......
-
Burnett v. National Enquirer, Inc.
...be seen to justify a proportionally high amount of punitive damages if the actual harm suffered thereby is small. (But cf. Finney v. Lockhart (1950) 35 Cal.2d 161, 164 * * *.) Also to be considered is the wealth of the particular defendant; obviously, the function of deterrence * * * will n......
-
The Interference Torts
...(2d Cir. 2003); Fieldturf Int’l. Inc. v. Triexe Mgmt. Group, No. 03 C 3512, 2004 WL 866494 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 16, 2004); Finney v. Lockheart, 217 P.2d 19 (Cal. 1950); Rueben H. Donnelley Corp. v. Brauer, 655 N.E.2d 1162, 1172 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995); Alexander & Alexander Inc. v. B. Dixon Evander......
-
The Interference Torts
...866494, at *2-3 (N.D. Ill. 2004) (permitting discovery on issue of punitive damages in tortious interference case); Finney v. Lockheart, 217 P.2d 19, 21-22 (Cal. 1950); Rueben H. Donnelley Corp. v. Brauer, 655 N.E.2d 1162, 1172 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995); Alexander & Alexander Inc. v. B. Dixon Ev......