Johnson v. Morris, (No. 3937.)

• Decision Date: 11 June 1924
• Docket Number: (No. 3937.)
• Citation: 158 Ga. 403,123 S.E. 707
• Parties: JOHNSON. v. MORRIS.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

158 Ga. 403

123 S.E. 707

JOHNSON.

v.MORRIS.

(No. 3937.)

Supreme Court of Georgia.

June 11, 1924.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Certiorari from Court of Appeals.

Action by S. J. Morris against J. L. Johnson. Judgment for defendant was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (30 Ga. App. 673, 118 S. E. 766), and defendant brings certiorari. Reversed.

Nathan Harris, of Rome, for plaintiff in error.

C. H. Porter, of Rome, for defendant in error.

HINES, J. This case is here on certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals, which is found in Johnson v. Morris, 30 Ga. App. 673, 118 S. E. 766. To clearly understand the questions of law raised by this certiorari, it is necessary to make a brief statement of the case. Morris sued Johnson for an injury to his person, resulting from an assault and battery, which he alleged was committed under the following circumstances of aggravation: There was a collision on a public street in the city of Rome between a big automobile driven by one Powers and a small car driven by Johnson. These cars were going in opposite directions. The car of Johnson was demolished. Morris, who was driving a truck behind the automobile of Powers, and going in the same direction when the wreck happened, went first to the car of Powers, to see if he was hurt, and, finding that Powers was not hurt, went back to the car of Johnson to see if he was hurt. Just as Morris went to the car of Johnson, the latter came out from under his car and around to its front. Morris had not said a word to Johnson, and was doing absolutely nothing to him, but was going to his aid. Without saying a word, Johnson struck Morris across the head with an automobile crank. Morris was knocked down, and was dazed or rendered unconscious from the lick. The purpose of Morris in going to the car of Johnson was to render the lat-ter any help and service which he could. On the trial the judge charged the jury as follows:

"In the event you should find there were aggravating circumstances in this assault, if there was an assault, if you should find the assault was unprovoked and aggravating in its nature, and the plaintiff suffered humiliation and mortification on account of it, then you might be authorized to go further and give the plaintiff damages—what is known as punitive or exemplary damages—such damages as your enlightened consciences might dictate to you, to punish him and deter him from similar acts in the future, in the event you find that the assault was unprovoked and aggravating in its nature, as alleged in the petition."

In his motion for new trial, the defendant excepted to this charge, on the grounds, among others, (1) that it was inapplicable under the pleadings and evidence, and (2) that the court erred in charging the jury that, if they found there were aggravating circumstances in this assault, they might give punitive or exemplary damages, to punish the defendant and to deter him from similar acts in the future. The Court of Appeals, in its decision, held that this instruction was applicable under the pleadings and evidence, and was not subject to any of the exceptions taken thereto. So we are called upon to...