Fuchs v. Kupper
| Decision Date | 20 December 1963 |
| Citation | 125 N.W.2d 360,22 Wis.2d 107 |
| Parties | Harold W. FUCHS, Appellant-Respondent, v. Richard E. KUPPER, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Mathias G. Schimenz, Milwaukee, Mark M. Camp, Wauwatosa, of counsel, for appellant-respondent.
Harold J. McGrath, Milwaukee, for respondent-appellant.
The plaintiff has appealed from an order of the circuit court which set aside the jury's verdict on the grounds of excessive damages and granted a new trial on the issue of damages unless the plaintiff elected to take judgment for the reduced amounts of $4,000 compensatory damages (instead of $7,500 awarded by the jury) and $2,500 punitive damages (instead of $12,500 awarded by the jury). The defendant has appealed from the same order insofar as it denies the defendant's motion for a new trial as to issues other than damages.
The Damages.
The trial court has the right to grant relief where in its judgment a jury has set damages in an excessive amount. Upon review of such determination, this court will not disturb such determination unless there has been an abuse of discretion. Blong v. Ed. Schuster & Co. (1956), 274 Wis. 237, 243, 79 N.W.2d 820.
We will first examine the factors relating to the compensatory damages. The record demonstrates that the plaintiff sustained out of pocket expenses of $1,060. This represents attorney's fees and the cost of a bail bond. He was arrested by a uniformed policeman and detained for a period from 3:30 in the afternoon until midnight. He was fingerprinted and interrogated by the police. Fuchs testified that he had never been arrested before.
Although previously he had operated a business of his own and worked as a salesman, he was obliged to take work as a filling station attendant for a month or two after his arrest. Thereafter, he once again obtained work as a salesman and appears to have continued in such employment. He was 43 years of age at the time of trial.
The plaintiff was obliged to endure a two-day criminal trial. He undoubtedly sustained mental anguish, humiliation and loss of dignity by reason of the malicious prosecution. The record is devoid of any evidence as to newspaper or other publicity which may have been adverse to the plaintiff.
Based upon the preceding facts, the trial court concluded that the sum of $7,500 was excessive and not commensurate with the plaintiff's actual damages. The trial court determined that $4,000 would be a fair and reasonable amount. We conclude that this action on the part of the circuit court was not an abuse of its discretion.
We now turn to the question of the punitive damages. The act of the defendant in swearing to a criminal complaint without probable cause and with malice warranted the imposition of such damages. The evidence justified a judgment which awarded 'smart money' in favor of the plaintiff in order to punish the wrongdoer for his malice and to discourage others from like conduct. See Gladfelter v. Doemel (1958), 2 Wis.2d 635, 647, 87 N.W.2d 490.
The determination of the proper sum to be assessed as punitive damages is a problem which is not easily resolved. There are conflicting policy considerations which must be considered in the setting of fair damages for malicious prosecution. Malco v. Midwest Aluminum Sales (1961), 14 Wis.2d 57, 109 N.W.2d 516; Wickhem, The Rule of Exemplary Damages in Wisconsin, 2 Wisconsin Law Review (1923), 129. See Anno. 35 A.L.R.2d 308.
The wealth of one who is guilty of malicious prosecution is a factor to be considered in determining punitive damages. In the instant case, the defendant appears to have had a net worth of $165,000 four years before the trial, but at the time of trial he testified that such worth was reduced to $20,000.
We have carefully considered the trial court's determinations that the punitive damages assessed by the jury were excessive and that $2,500 is a proper figure. We conclude that the order issued by the trial court is consistent with the discretion granted to the court. Malco v. Midwest Aluminum Sales (1961), 14 Wis.2d 57, 109 N.W.2d 516; Lehner v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jacque v. Steenberg Homes, Inc.
...damage award will not be disturbed unless the verdict is so clearly excessive as to indicate passion and prejudice. Fuchs v. Kupper, 22 Wis.2d 107, 125 N.W.2d 360 (1963). When we review the record to determine whether a punitive damage award is excessive, the evidence must be viewed in the ......
-
Fahrenberg v. Tengel
...52 Wis.2d 173, 181, 188 N.W.2d 494 (1971); Jones v. Fisher, 42 Wis.2d 209, 220, 221, 166 N.W.2d 175 (1969); Fuchs v. Kupper, 22 Wis.2d 107, 113, 125 N.W.2d 360 (1963); Malco v. Midwest Aluminum Sales, 14 Wis.2d 57, 109 N.W.2d 516 (1961); Gladfeldter v. Doemel, 2 Wis.2d 635, 648, 87 N.W.2d 4......
-
Dalton v. Meister
...In Malco punitive damages of approximately seven and one-half percent of the defendant's wealth was approved. In Fuchs v. Kupper (1963), 22 Wis.2d 107, 125 N.W.2d 360, an award of twelve and one-half percent was In his last argument, Meister contends the evidence presented concerning his ne......
-
Entzminger v. Ford Motor Co.
...59 Wis. 95, 17 N.W. 672.3 Lavery v. Crooke (1881), 52 Wis. 612, 9 N.W. 599; Klopfer v. Bromme (1870), 26 Wis. 372.4 Fuchs v. Kupper (1963), 22 Wis.2d 107, 125 N.W.2d 360, Gladfelter v. Doemel (1958), 2 Wis.2d 635, 87 N.W.2d 490; Topolewski v. Plankinton Packing Co. (1910), 143 Wis. 52, 126 ......