Hodges v. Hall

• Decision Date: 13 September 1916
• Docket Number: 27.
• Citation: 89 S.E. 802,172 N.C. 29
• Parties: HODGES v. HALL.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

89 S.E. 802

172 N.C. 29

HODGES v. HALL.

No. 27.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

September 13, 1916

Appeal from Superior Court, Hyde County; Allen, Judge.

Action by D. C. Hodges against W. D. Hall. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Directing jury as matter of law to allow punitive damages for assault and battery held error.

Civil action to recover damages for assault and battery. The jury rendered the following verdict:

"(1) Did the defendant wrongfully and unlawfully beat and assault the plaintiff, as alleged? Answer: Yes.

(2) What damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover therefor? Answer: One thousand dollars."

Judgment on the verdict for plaintiff, and defendant excepted and appealed, assigning for error chiefly the charge of the court on the question of exemplary damages.

Ward & Thompson, of Elizabeth City, and Spencer & Spencer, of Swan Quarter, for appellant.

Mann & Jones, of Swan Quarter, and Ward & Grimes, of Washington, N C., for appellee.

HOKE J.

The question of compensatory and punitive damages has been presented in several of the more recent cases before this court (Byers v. Express Co., 165 N.C. 542, 81 S.E 741; Carmichael v. Telephone Co., 157 N.C. 21, 72 S.E. 619, 39 L. R. A. [ N. S.] 651, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 1117 same case reported in 162 N.C. 333, 78 S.E. 507, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 983; Williams v. Railroad, 144 N.C. 498, 57 S.E. 216, 12 L. R. A. [ N. S.] 191, 12 Ann. Cas. 1000; Ammons v. Railroad, 140 N.C. 196, 52 S.E. 731); and from these and other authorities it appears that compensatory damages is not necessarily restricted to the actual pecuniary loss caused by defendant's wrong, but the term may extend to and embrace what the jury may decide to be a fair and just compensation for the injury including actual loss in time and money, the physical inconvenience and physical and mental suffering and humiliation endured, and which could be properly considered as a reasonable and probable result of the wrong done (Carmichael v. Telephone Co., supra). Speaking further to the subject, the court said:

"Exemplary or punitive damages are not given with a view to compensation, but are under certain circumstances awarded, in addition to compensation, as a punishment to defendant and as a warning to other wrongdoers. They are not allowed as a matter of course, but only where there are some features of aggravation, as when the wrong is done willfully and maliciously, or under circumstances of rudeness or oppression, or in a manner which evinces a reckless and wanton disregard of plaintiff's rights."

And on this question it has also been expressly held in this jurisdiction:

"That when, on facts in evidence, the question of punitive damages is properly presented, the award of such damages and the amount thereof, under a proper charge, is for the jury, and can never be directed by the court as a matter of law." Billings v. Charlotte Observer, 150 N.C. 540-544, 64 S.E. 435

--a position that is very generally approved by the authoritative cases on the subject. Topolewski v. Packing Co., 143 Wis. page 52, 126 N.W. 554; Ferguson v. Moore, 98 Tenn. 342, 39 S.W. 341; Carson v. Smith, 133 Mo 616, 34 S.W. 855; Railway Co. v. Rector, ...