Howlett v. Tuttle

• Decision Date: 03 October 1890
• Citation: 15 Colo. 454,24 P. 921
• Parties: HOWLETT v. TUTTLE.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

24 P. 921

15 Colo. 454

HOWLETT v. TUTTLE.

Supreme Court of Colorado

October 3, 1890

Error to district court, Arapahoe county.

Syllabus by the Court

It is the settled rule of this state, when not controlled by legislation, that exemplary or punitive damages as a punishment or example should not be awarded in civil actions for injuries resulting from torts where the offense is punishable under the criminal laws.But seeSess. Laws 1889 p. 64.

B M. & C.J. Hughes, jr., for plaintiff in error.

J. W. Horner, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff below sued to recover damages on the ground, as alleged in the complaint, that defendant, maliciously intending to injure plaintiff, had wantonly and willfully made a breach in a certain irrigating ditch, when full of water, and so flooded and injured a large tract of plaintiff's land, and totally destroyed certain other property.Plaintiff prayed judgment against defendant for the sum of $600 as the actual damages to his property, and for $900 as punitive or exemplary damages.The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff, assessing his damages generally at the sum of $400.The defendant brings the case to this court, and assigns for error, inter alia that the court instructed the jury to the effect that if they believed from the evidence that defendant committed the acts complained of with a malicious in tent to wards the plaintiff,--that is, with intent to flood plaintiff's property with water and sediment, and so injure it,--then they might, in addition to the actual damages sustained by plaintiff by reason thereof, assess against the defendant in favor of the plaintiff exemplary damages,--that is, damages by way of punishment of the defendant's malice.At and prior to the time when this cause was tried, in December 1882, the rule thus laid down by the trial court had been very generally recognized as correct by the courts of England and America, though able jurists and law-writers had been somewhat at variance as to what were the true elements of damage in cases of this kind.In 1884, this court, in the case of Murphy v. Hobbs, 7 Colo. 541, 5 P. 119, in an elaborate opinion, held that it was more in accordance with good reason and sound logic that exemplary or punitive damages, as a punishment or example, should not be awarded in civil actions for injuries resulting from torts where the offense is punishable under the criminal...