Pendleton v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 23 April 1918 |
| Docket Number | 3523. |
| Citation | 95 S.E. 941,82 W.Va. 270 |
| Parties | PENDLETON v. NORFOLK & W. RY. CO. ET AL. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Submitted April 16, 1918.
Syllabus by the Court.
In a civil action to recover damages for an assault and battery the defendant cannot justify upon the ground of self-defense unless such matter of justification be specially pleaded.
In such case, however, evidence tending to show that the assault was committed by the defendant in self-defense may be introduced under the plea of not guilty, in mitigation of damages, but not in justification of the assault.
In a civil suit to recover damages for an assault and battery, it is not proper to admit in evidence the record of a justice of the peace showing the conviction of the plaintiff in the civil suit of an assault and battery upon the defendant for the very same transaction which affords the basis for the civil suit, from which conviction an appeal was taken, and which charge still remains undetermined upon the appeal.
Punitive damages should not be awarded in any case, unless there is evidence from which the jury may conclude that the defendant acted with malice toward the plaintiff, or with reckless and wanton disregard of the plaintiff's rights.
Where in an action for assault and battery, there is evidence tending to show that the defendant acted with malice toward the plaintiff, or with reckless and wanton disregard of the rights of the plaintiff, it is proper to instruct the jury that if they believe that the defendant did so act they may in their discretion award damages in excess of that which would compensate the plaintiff for his injury, as a punishment to deter the defendant and others from the commission of like offenses.
Punitive damages should not be awarded in a case where the amount of compensatory damages is adequate to punish the defendant, and in a case where such compensatory damages are not in the judgment of the jury adequate for the purpose of punishment, only such additional amount should be awarded as taken together with the compensatory damages will be sufficient for that purpose.
In a case where it is proper to award punitive damages, the amount of such award must bear some reasonable proportion to the amount of compensatory damages.
In a case in which it is proper for a jury to award punitive damages, it is competent to consider the station of the parties, and particularly the financial and social standing of the defendant, in order that it may be determined what will be adequate and sufficient punishment, and where, after considering these elements, as well as the nature and character of the offense committed, the amount found is so out of proportion to the injury inflicted that it is patent that the jury were actuated by motives of ill feeling toward the defendant in ascertaining such damages, and not alone by the purpose to punish the defendant, such verdict will be set aside as excessive.
Where in a civil action to recover damages for assault and battery, the actual damages found by the jury are substantial as in this case, an award of punitive damages for ten times the amount of the actual damages awarded will not be sustained.
Error to Circuit Court, Mercer County.
Action by Bascom W. Pendleton against the Norfolk & Western Railway Company and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Reversed, verdict set aside, and cause remanded for a new trial.
French & Easley and Bernard McClaugherty, all of Bluefield, and A. W. Reynolds, of Princeton, for plaintiffs in error.
Sanders, Crockett & Kee, of Bluefield, and John R. Pendleton, of Princeton, for defendant in error.
The plaintiff in this case purchased a ticket from the defendant railway company's agent at Pocahontas, Va., entitling him to passage on one of its passenger trains to Cooper, W.Va. He claims that with this ticket in his possession he boarded a train of the defendant company at Pocahontas, and placed his hand baggage in a seat in one of the cars thereof; that before he got on the train he had been in conversation with a minister of the gospel by the name of Gose, with whom, however, he had had no previous acquaintance. After taking his seat he observed Gose in another seat, and for the purpose of resuming the conversation with him he left his baggage and took the seat beside him. In going to the station of Cooper the train upon which plaintiff was a passenger passed the station of Bluestone Junction. At some point between Pocahontas and Bluestone Junction the conductor came through the car and, as plaintiff contends, took up his ticket from Pocahontas to Cooper. This statement is fully borne out by the testimony of Mr. Gose who says that he and the plaintiff were occupying the same seat, and when the conductor came through he (Gose) gave the conductor his mileage to Bluestone Junction, and that the plaintiff surrendered his ticket to the conductor. This is denied by the conductor. When the train reached Bluestone Junction Gose alighted therefrom, and the plaintiff returned to the rear of the car and took his former seat. After the train left Bluestone Junction on its way to Cooper the conductor again came through the car and called upon the plaintiff for his ticket. The plaintiff informed the conductor that he had surrendered his ticket before reaching Bluestone Junction, and also gave the conductor information as to his changed position since leaving that station. The conductor denied this statement of the plaintiff and contended that he had not received any ticket or fare from him, and the plaintiff, it seems, was as insistent that he had surrendered his ticket to the conductor. While the controversy was going on the conductor continued to take up tickets from the passengers in the adjoining seats. It seems that when the conductor approached the plaintiff on this occasion and demanded his ticket plaintiff was reading a newspaper, and while the controversy with the conductor was going on he folded this newspaper and held the same in his hand. Plaintiff says that when the conductor repeatedly charged him with not paying his fare he arose in his seat and insisted to the conductor that he had surrendered his ticket on the occasion referred to, and in order to be impressive tapped the conductor on the shoulder with the folded newspaper, which he states was a habit he had when in conversation with others whom he desired to impress with his statements. About the same time, according to his statement, he told the conductor if he (the conductor) said that he had not given him his ticket he was a damn liar, and plaintiff says that when he made this statement the conductor struck him a severe blow in the face, which knocked off his glasses and cut a very deep gash over one eye. As a result of this blow the plaintiff fell in his seat, and according to his statement the conductor continued to pummel him with his fists until he had administered some ten or twelve severe blows to him, and then kicked him in the leg, as a result of which he sustained a severe gash. About this time the train had reached the plaintiff's destination, Cooper, and the plaintiff was told to get his traps and get off the train, which he did. The same afternoon he returned to Bluefield and went to a hospital, where his wounds were treated, and where he remained until the next afternoon, when he left the hospital and went to Princeton, where he was again treated by a physician. The conductor, who is one of the defendants here, contends that the plaintiff's story is not accurate as to the occurrence on that occasion. He states that the plaintiff never gave him the ticket to Cooper, but that when he approached the plaintiff, and the plaintiff insisted that he had given him the ticket, he had come to the conclusion that because of the probability of his making a mistake he would give the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt, and passed on to take tickets from the passengers to the rear of plaintiff; that when he did this plaintiff rose up in his seat and accused him (the conductor) of trying to embarrass him before the passengers by charging him with attempting to defraud the railroad company out of the insignificant fare, and called him a damn liar, and struck him in the face with the newspaper, whereupon he struck the plaintiff with his fist and knocked him down in his seat, and according to his own statement struck him four or five severe blows, and then kicked him with his foot. A number of eyewitnesses to the occurrence testify in regard thereto. Some of them support the plaintiff in his contention, and some support the conductor in his theory of what occurred. A verdict was returned by the jury in favor of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial