Pickle v. Swinehart
| Decision Date | 30 March 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 36104,36104 |
| Citation | 166 N.E.2d 227,11 O.O.2d 199,170 Ohio St. 441 |
| Parties | , 11 O.O.2d 199 PICKLE, Appellee, v. SEINEHART, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The terms 'legal malice' and 'actual malice' are not synonymous.
2. In an action for malicious prosecution a request for a trial judge to charge the jury with respect to legal malice is not a request for a charge on actual malice, which is an element essential to the allowance of punitive damages. (Paragraph one of the syllabus of Davis v. Tunison, 168 Ohio St. 471, 155 N.E.2d 904, approved and followed.)
3. When a trial judge is requested to charge a jury on legal malice, a failure to charge on actual malice is not error.
In the Court of Common Pleas the plaintiff recovered a verdict and judgment for $300 against the defendant appellant for the alleged malicious prosecution of a charge of stealing certain personal property, namely, several stones which had been part of the foundation of a house recently moved to another location.
From the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas the plaintiff perfected an appeal to the Court of Appeals on questions of law, claiming, as one of his assignments of error, that the amount of the verdict and judgment is inadequate. The reviewing court found no prejudicial error except that 'the trial court erred in charging the jury on the question of punitive damages by charging that punitive damages may be awarded only on proof of actual malice and that actual malice 'means a feeling of hatred, ill will or revengefulness' when in law actual malice may also be 'inferred from conduct and surrounding circumstances, such as malicious prosecution of one wantonly, recklessly, and without justification.'' But see Rogers v. Barbera, 170 Ohio St. 241, 245, 164 N.E.2d 162. The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas was reversed, and the cause was remanded to that court for further proceeding.
The cause is in this court for a review by reason of the allowance of the defendant's motion to certify the record.
Felver & Hartnett, Akron, for appellant.
Myers, Myers & Myers, Akron, for appellee.
In the opinion of the Court of Appeals appears the following statement:
'We have examined all of the claimed errors, and find none prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant except the instruction by the trial judge on the subject of punitive damages and the definition of actual malice.
When counsel for the plaintiff requested the trial judge 'to charge that legal malice was, or is, a basis for punitive damages,' was this a request by mere implication that the court should charge the jury on the additional subject of actual malice? The Court of Appeals answered this question in the affirmative and held that the trial judge was guilty of prejudicial error in not so charging.
With this conclusion of the Court of Appeals this court finds that it can not agree.
Are the terms 'legal malice' and 'actual malice' synonymous?
Not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stillwagon v. City of Del., Case No. 2:14–cv–807
...excuse, to the injury of another,’ " Gosden v. Louis , 116 Ohio App.3d 195, 687 N.E.2d 481, 496 (1996) (quoting Pickle v. Swinehart , 170 Ohio St. 441, 166 N.E.2d 227, 229 (1960) ), As such, malice is "inferred from or imputed to a common design by two or more persons to cause harm to anoth......
-
Gosden v. Louis
...malice" of the sort generally necessary to sustain an award of punitive damages in tort actions. Pickle v. Swinehart (1960), 170 Ohio St. 441, 443, 11 O.O.2d 199, 200, 166 N.E.2d 227, 229. See, also, R.C. 2315.21. Legal (or implied) malice has been defined as wrongful, intentional action wi......
-
Walsh v. Erie County Dept. of Job and Family Serv.
...which a person does a wrongful act purposely, without a reasonable or lawful excuse, to the injury of another." Pickle v. Swinehart, 170 Ohio St. 441, 443, 166 N.E.2d 227 (1960). Also, in a conspiracy, the acts of coconspirators are attributable to each other. Williams v. Aetna Fin. Co., 83......
-
In re National Century Financial Enterprises, Inc., 2:03-md-1565.
...a person does a wrongful act purposely, without a reasonable or lawful excuse, to the injury of another." Pickle v. Swinehart, 170 Ohio St. 441, 443, 166 N.E.2d 227, 229 (Ohio 1960). The Outside Directors' alleged negligence in reviewing the audits does not support an inference that they fo......