Niemeyer v. McCarty, 16964.

Citation48 N.E.2d 829
Decision Date22 May 1943
Docket NumberNo. 16964.,16964.
PartiesNIEMEYER et al. v. McCARTY et al.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

48 N.E.2d 829

NIEMEYER et al.
v.
McCARTY et al.

No. 16964.

Appellate Court of Indiana, in Banc.

May 22, 1943.


Appeal from Jasper Circuit Court; Moses Leopold, Judge.

Action by Ernest B. McCarty against Adolph Niemeyer, Sr., Adolph Niemeyer, Jr., and Harry Boesel for assault and battery. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants Adolph Niemeyer, Sr., and Adolph Niemeyer, Jr., appeal, naming defendant Harry Boesel as an appellee.

Affirmed.

[48 N.E.2d 831]

John W. Lyddick, Alex Pendleton, and Harry Long, all of Gary, for appellants.

E. Miles Norton, of Crown Point, and Abraham Halleck, of Rensselaer, for appellees.


FLANAGAN, Presiding Judge.

This is an action brought by appellee, Ernest B. McCarty, against the appellants, Adolph Niemeyer, Sr., and Adolph Niemeyer, Jr., and appellee, Harry Boesel, to recover damages for assault and battery.

Trial to jury resulted in verdict and judgment against all the defendants below in the sum of $3,000. Harry Boesel did not join in the appeal and was therefore made an appellee.

The sole error relied upon for reversal is the overruling of appellants' motion for a new trial which asserts: (1) That the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence; (2) that the verdict is contrary to law; (3) that the damages assessed are excessive; (4) that the court erred in its rulings on the exclusion of certain evidence; (5) that the court erred in making certain remarks in the presence of the jury; (6) that the court erred in the refusing of certain instructions; and (7) that the court erred in refusing to require the jury to answer certain interrogatories.

Under the above specifications of the motion for a new trial numbered 1 and 2 appellants say that the evidence is insufficient because it fails to show that the defendants below acted “jointly” or that there was “concerted action” between them.

[1] If a second person joins in an assault and battery, even after it has started, either by encouraging its continuation or by actually assisting, the assault and battery is joint and the second person is liable with the first for such injury as occurs after he joins. Little v. Tingle, 1866, 26 Ind. 168;Perrine v. Hanacik, 1913, 40 Okl. 359, 138 P. 148, 51 L.R.A.,N.S., 718 and note.

[2] There is evidence that one of the defendants below held the appellee while the other two committed the battery which resulted in the injuries complained of. Such evidence is sufficient to show a joint assault and battery.

Appellants say that the amount of damages assessed are excessive because the evidence shows that appellee incurred hospital and doctor bills not to exceed $500 and shows no other financial loss.

[3] But in assault and battery, damages may be recovered not merely for pecuniary loss but for injuries at the time, permanent injuries resulting therefrom, mental suffering and mortification of feeling, loss of time from work, physical pain, sense of shame, mental anguish and pain and humiliation. Singer, etc., Machine Co. v. Phipps, 1911, 49 Ind.App. 116, 94 N.E. 793.

There is evidence of the following:

[4] Appellee suffered a fractured bone in his face, fractures of six ribs, four of them in two places, and a punctured lung. He had to have four or five teeth removed, was confined to the hospital for nine days and was unable to work for a year. His injuries are permanent. He has trouble breathing, spits up blood and is more susceptible to lung diseases. His chest has a depression.

The amount of the verdict against this background of evidence is not such as to enable this court to say that the jury acted through prejudice, passion, partiality or corruption. See Peterson v. Liddington, 1915, 60 Ind.App. 41, 108 N.E. 977.

Appellants next complain that the court erred in refusing to allow them to introduce into evidence for the purpose of impeaching appellee, who had taken the stand, certain records which they claim show that he had been found guilty of contempt of court.

[5] Section 2-1725, Burns' 1933, § 312, Baldwin's 1934, Acts 1881 (Spec. Session) Ch. 38, § 284, p. 240, reads as follows: “Any fact which might, heretofore, be shown to render a witness incompetent, may be...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT