Smith v. Myers

• Decision Date: 12 November 1924
• Docket Number: 386.
• Parties: SMITH v. MYERS ET AL. SMITH v. MYERS.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

125 S.E. 178

188 N.C. 551

SMITH v. MYERS ET AL.

SMITH v. MYERS.

No. 386.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

November 12, 1924

Appeal from Superior Court, Davidson County; Bryson, Judge.

Separate actions by Charlie Smith, by his next friend, against June Myers and another, and by J. Mack Smith against June Myers. Judgments for plaintiffs in nominal amount only, and they appeal. Modified and affirmed.

The two cases were tried together, and the following verdicts were returned:

Charlie Smith v. June Myers and Roy Myers:

Did the defendants unlawfully and wrongfully assault the plaintiff as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.

What actual damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendants? Answer: 10 cents.

What punitive damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendants? Answer: 25 cents.

J. Mack Smith v. June Myers:

Did the defendant unlawfully and wrongfully assault the plaintiff, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.

What actual damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendants? Answer: 30 cents.

What punitive damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendant? Answer: 1 cent.

Judgment. Appeal by plaintiffs.

"Vindictive or punitive damages," being award by way of punishment and as warning to other wrongdoers, are not allowed as matter of course, but only when there is aggravation, malice rudeness, oppression, or reckless and wanton disregard of plaintiff's rights.

Walser & Walser and Z. I. Walser, all of Lexington, for appellants.

Phillips & Bower, of Lexington, for appellees.

ADAMS J.

The plaintiff in the first case offered in evidence the record in a criminal action against Roy Myers to show that this defendant had pleaded guilty of the assault set out in the complaint and had been fined; and the plaintiff in the second case offered to prove, upon the cross-examination of D. C Craver, a witness for the defendant, the substance of the verdict in State v. June Myers. The evidence was excluded in each instance and the plaintiffs excepted.

The record does not disclose what the witness Craver would have testified as to the verdict, and for this reason, if for no other, the latter exception is without merit. Hosiery Co. v. Express Co., 186 N.C. 556, 120 S.E. 228; Snyder v. Asheboro, 182 N.C. 708, 110 S.E. 84; In re Edens, 182 N.C. 398, 109 S.E. 269.

The second issue in the first action was answered in favor of the plaintiff; and the exclusion of the record in State v. Roy Myers was harmless unless the evidence was competent in aggravation of punitive damages. In our opinion it was not competent for this purpose. Vindictive or punitive damages are treated as an award by way of punishment to the offender and as a warning to other wrongdoers; they are not allowed as a matter of course, but only when there are some features of aggravation, as willfulness, malice, rudeness, oppression, or a reckless and wanton disregard of the plaintiff's rights. Hodges v. Hall, 172 N.C. 29, 89 S.E. 802. The record of a simple admission of guilt tended to disclose none of these features. In Smithwick v. Ward, 52 N.C. 64, 75 Am. Dec. 453, the court held that in a civil action for assault and battery the jury should be permitted to consider the fine imposed in a criminal action for the same assault in abatement of exemplary damages; Manly, J., saying:

"When the inquiry is made by the jury, in a civil action, how much ought to be given for smart money, it is material and legitimate to know how much the defendant has been made to smart already; that the jury may estimate how much more will be required to effect the object of the law."

But the decision is not in support of the position taken by the plaintiffs in these actions.

The proposed evidence was properly excluded; but...