Richard v. Hunter

• Decision Date: 23 March 1949
• Docket Number: 31487.
• Citation: 151 Ohio St. 185,85 N.E.2d 109
• Parties: RICHARD v. HUNTER et al.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

85 N.E.2d 109

151 Ohio St. 185

RICHARD v. HUNTER et al.

No. 31487.

Supreme Court of Ohio

March 23, 1949

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Exemplary or punitive damages may not be awarded in the absence of proof of actual damages.

2. In an action for trespass upon land, a verdict returned by the jury, expressly denying the recovery of compensatory damages, is an affirmative finding that no actual damages were established.

3. In such action, a verdict for the plaintiff, wherein the jury assessed 'the amount due to the plaintiff from the defendants * * * at the sum of none dollars, for compensatory damages; and * * * at the sum of two hundred dollars for punitive damages,' is defective and will not authorize a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

Appeal from Court of Appeals, Huron County.

This case originated in the Court of Common Pleas of Huron County.

Edward B. Richard, appellant herein, filed an amended petition wherein damages, both actual and punitive were sought, based upon a claimed trespass by defendants on property of plaintiff. An answer and cross-petition was filed by defendant E. J. Hunter, to which answer and cross-petition plaintiff filed a reply. Defendants Elwood L. Holland and Catherine Holland, appellees herein, filed an answer which was substantially a general denial. Issue was made by these pleadings.

Upon the trial a verdict was returned in favor of the plaintiff against the defendants Elwood L. Holland and Catherine Holland, which verdict was as follows:

'We, the jury, being duly impaneled and sworn, find the issues in this case in favor of the plaintiff, and assess the amount due to the plaintiff from the defendants, Elwood L. Holland and Catherine Holland, at the sum of none dollars, for compensatory damages; and from the defendants, Elwood L. Holland and Catherine Holland, at the sum of two hundred dollars for punitive damages.'

No verdict was returned and no judgment rendered on the issues between the plaintiff and the defendant Hunter.

No motion for new trial or for judgment non obstante veredicto or in any wise attacking or questioning the form of verdict was filed by either party, and counsel for each party tacitly approved the judgment entered on the verdict.

The case was appealed to the Court of Appeals on questions of law. There was no bill of exceptions and the case was submitted to the Court of Appeals on only the pleadings and a transcript of the docket and journal entries.

The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas and entered a final judgment in favor of the defendants, one of the judges, however, withholding concurrence from the final judgment entered.

The cause is in this court following the allowance of a motion to certify the record of the Court of Appeals.

Young & Young, of Norwalk, for appellant.

Miller & Miller, of Norwalk, for appellees.

MATTHIAS Judge.

A single question of law is presented to this court by this appeal: In an action to recover damages for trespass upon land in possession of plaintiff under lease will a verdict by a jury, which finds for the plaintiff and against the defendants in 'the sum of none dollars, for compensatory damages; * * * and * * * the sum of two hundred dollars for punitive damages,' authorize the entering of a judgment for the plaintiff thereon?

The plaintiff claims that since his cause of action was one for trespass on land, the finding in his favor determined the issue and established that his legal right of possession had been invaded, and, therefore, that he was entitled to recover at least nominal damages. Plaintiff contends that damages are to be inferred by reason of the trespass, and that since nothing in the record shows plaintiff had not suffered actual damages the failure of the jury to fix and assess the amount of such damages cannot vitiate the verdict. Such contention is based upon the claim that the general rule, that exemplary damages are recoverable only in cases where actual damages are shown to exist, is not applicable in this case.

The rule, that before punitive damages may be awarded actual damages must have been found and assessed, is the rule generally applied. It is very fully stated in 15 American Jurisprudence 706, Section 270, as follows:

'According to the rule laid down by a majority of the decisions, actual damage must be found as a predicate for, or at least must be shown to have been done to sustain, an award of exemplary damages. In other words, according to the weight of authority, exemplary damages or punitive damages are not recoverable in the absence of proof of actual damages. The reason given for this rule is that punitive damages are mere incidents to the cause of action. Statutes creating a cause of action have, because of the language employed in them, been construed as not authorizing an imposition of exemplary damages unless actual damages are proved. In a number of jurisdictions, however, a contrary rule prevails, and punitive damages may be allowed in tort actions, although no actual damages are shown.'

Quoting further from 15 American Jurisprudence 707, Section 271:

'Many cases applying the rule requiring that actual damages be found as a predicate for the allowance of exemplary damages hold that an award of mere nominal damages will not serve as a basis for the imposition of punitive or exemplary damages--that is, that substantial actual damages must be found to entitle one to damages given by way of punishment and example. Small actual damages are not, however, to be confused with mere nominal damages, and the fact that the damages are small does not bring the case within the rule that nominal damages will not support a verdict for punitive damages.

'According to the weight of authority, punitive damages may be recovered although the actual damages found are only nominal in amount. It is not always clear in what sense the term 'nominal damages' is used in this regard; that is, whether by it small actual damages or damages incapable of measurement are meant or whether it is used to designate the damages which follow in every case of violation of mere legal rights. If used in the latter sense, these cases go far toward destroying the practical effect of the general rule making actual damages a necessary predicate for exemplary damages. If, however, the phrase 'nominal damages' is used in the sense of slight actual damages or actual damages incapable of ascertainment and award, a wide scope is left for the operation of the general rule. It will be recalled that the principal reason given in support of the general rule requiring actual damage as a predicate for the recovery of exemplary damages is that a private action cannot be maintained merely to inflict punishment upon the wrongdoer. a number of cases supporting the rule that a verdict for punitive damages may be supported even where the...