Shortle v. Central Vermont Public Service Corp.

• Decision Date: 06 February 1979
• Docket Number: No. 295-77,295-77
• Citation: 399 A.2d 517,137 Vt. 32
• Parties: Charles A. SHORTLE, Jr. and Joan Frances Shortle v. CENTRAL VERMONT PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION.
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Page 517

399 A.2d 517

137 Vt. 32

Charles A. SHORTLE, Jr. and Joan Frances Shortle v. CENTRAL VERMONT PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION.

No. 295-77.

Supreme Court of Vermont.

Feb. 6, 1979.

Motion for Reargument Denied Feb. 21, 1979.

Bloomer & Bloomer, Rutland, for plaintiffs.

Allan R. Keyes, of Ryan, Smith & Carbine, Ltd., Rutland, for defendant.

Before BARNEY, C. J., and DALEY, LARROW, BILLINGS and HILL, JJ.

BILLINGS, Justice.

Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment order of the Rutland Superior Court awarding them the sum of $300 as compensatory damages in a tort action. Plaintiffs' injury arises out of certain acts of the defendant corporation's servants in disconnecting the electrical service to plaintiffs' tenement house, and in failing through inadvertence to notify the plaintiffs of the termination of this service. Water pipes froze, causing damage to an apartment. This cause was before us once before, Shortle v. Central Vermont Public Service Corp., 134 Vt. 486, 365 A.2d 256 (1976), at which time we affirmed the lower court's judgment of liability but remanded for a new trial on the issue of damages.

The plaintiffs claim that the trial court erred in not submitting the issue of punitive damages to the jury, in allowing a nonexpert to give his opinion as to the amount of repairs necessary to be done to the property, in denying plaintiffs a recess so that they could subpoena a rebuttal witness, and in denying plaintiffs' motion for an explanation to the jury of the reasons for the witness's absence.

Punitive or exemplary damages may upon proper showing be awarded if the act or acts relied upon are more than wrongful or unlawful. It must be shown that there was actual malice. This may be shown by conduct manifesting personal ill will or carried out under circumstances evidencing insult or oppression, or even by conduct showing a reckless or wanton disregard of one's rights. Sparrow v. Vermont Savings Bank, 95 Vt. 29, 33, 112 A. 205, 207 (1921). The fact that the defendant is a corporation does not prevent an award of punitive damages in an appropriate case, but the malicious or unlawful act relied upon must be that of the governing officers of the corporation or one lawfully exercising their authority, or, if the act relied upon is that of a servant or agent of the corporation, it must be clearly shown that the governing officers either directed the act, participated in it, or subsequently ratified it. Sparrow v. Vermont Savings Bank, supra, 95 Vt. at 32, 112 A. at 206; Wells v. Boston & Maine R. R., 82 Vt. 108, 71 A. 1103 (1909). The record before us does not show any malicious act directed, participated in, or ratified by any governing officer. The evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, establishes no more than the ordinary carelessness of the Plaintiffs allege that it was error to allow a subsequent owner of the property to give his opinion as to the damage observed when he first became the owner of the property, and to give his opinion as to the cost of repairs. An owner is a competent witness to testify as to the value of his property while holding title. 12 V.S.A. § 1604. The record discloses that the lay witness owner did not testify as to the cause of the damage, but only as to the damage observed and the cost of repair as of his ownership. This testimony was admissible and there is no error.

defendant's employees in terminating the plaintiffs' electrical service, and in not notifying them of that termination. This is insufficient as a matter of law to establish liability for punitive damages on the part of the defendant corpo...