State ex rel. Hall v. Cook
Decision Date | 14 March 1966 |
Docket Number | No. 51598,51598 |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE of Missouri ex rel. Keith HALL and David L. Riley, d/b/a Hall & Riley Quarries and Construction Company, Relators, v. Honorable Phil H.COOK, Judge of the Circuit Court of Saline County, Missouri, Respondent. |
Rogers, Field & Gentry, Charles W. Baker, Kansas City, Howard F. Major, Columbia, Williams, Williams & Reesman, Boonville, for relators.
Conway & Blanck, James E. Conway, Boonville, for respondent.
Original proceeding in prohibition to prevent the respondent Judge from requiring relators to answer certain interrogatories. Relators are partners in the operation of a limestone quarry and were sued by August and Bernadine Wassman (hereinafter called plaintiffs) for $40,000.00 actual damages and $50,000.00 punitive damages, alleging injuries to their property and personal damages and discomfort from the operation of relators' quarry.
The issue raised by relators is whether respondent Judge exceeded his jurisdiction in requiring relators to answer the following interrogatories propounded by plaintiffs:
Respondent's brief says: '(B)oth items are a proper point of inquiry in the case wherein punitive damages are sought.' Relators rely on the rule thus stated in Thomas v. Durham Motors, Inc., Mo.App., 389 S.W.2d 412, 414: citing our rulings in Wolfersberger v. Miller, 327 Mo. 1150, 39 S.W.2d 758, and Dawes v. Starrett, 336 Mo. 897, 82 S.W.2d 43. This rule was stated in Washington Gaslight Co. v. Lansden, 172 U.S. 534, 19 S.Ct. 296, 303, 43 L.Ed. 543, quoted in the Dawes case, 82 S.W.2d l.c. 60, as follows: (19 S.Ct. l.c. 303.) Subsequent Missouri cases have followed this rule; and it is said to be the majority rule in an annotation in 63 A.L.R. 1405. In Burton v. Auffenberg, Mo.App., 357 S.W.2d 218, 223, the St. Louis Court of Appeals found submission of plaintiff's claim for punitive damages authorized against five partners but held that the rule of Dawes v. Starrett applied and prevented showing the financial interests of one of them. However, in our cases it had not been considered that in the Washington Gaslight case, there was a verdict for one sum against three defendants (compensatory and punitive lumped together) and not separate findings on compensatory and punitive damages as required by our Rule 71.06 V.A.M.R., and previously by Sec. 510.270, RSMo, V.A.M.S. Of course, under procedure requiring a single lump sum verdict against all defendants, evidence of greater wealth of one would be prejudicial error.
Our rule as to compensatory damages in tort actions, which is the universal rule, is: 'All who are guilty of participating in the wrongdoing are jointly and severally liable for the whole damage, and the judgment must be in one amount and against all who are not discharged.' Electrolytic Chlorine Co. v. Wallace & Tiernan Co., 328 Mo. 782, 41 S.W.2d 1049, 1052, 78 A.L.R. 930; see also Neal v. Curtis & Co., 328 Mo. 389, 41 S.W.2d 543, 557. The Washington Gaslight Company case (19 S.Ct. l.c. 303) applied this rule to all damages in tort cases, requiring both compensatory and punitive damages in one sum and saying:
Is it necessary to apply the rule of compensatory damages to punitive damages? There are variations from this rule. 'In some states it is held that exemplary damages are to be assessed according to the guilt of the most innocent of several defendants, and that if any of them were acting in good faith, and so not liable for such damages, none can be awarded in the suit; while in other jurisdictions it is held proper for the jury to assess damages against all the defendants jointly according to the amount which, in the jury's judgment, the most culpable of the defendants ought to pay.' However, more to the point herein: 'In some jurisdictions the jury, in an action against joint tortfeasors, may make awards for exemplary damages in different amounts, depending upon what the evidence shows and the jury finds to be the differing degree of culpability among the several defendants, and may award such damages against one or more of them and not against others.' 22 Am.Jur.2d 356--357, Damages, Sec. 262; see also 25 C.J.S. Damages § 126(3), p. 1170; Sedgwick on Damages, Sec. 382; Sutherland on Damages, sec. 407; annotation on apportionment of punitive damages, 62 A.L.R. 239. The Supreme Court of California, in Thomson v. Catalina, 205 Cal. 402, 271 P. 198, 62 A.L.R. 235, following Nelson v. Halvorson, 117 Minn. 255, 135 N.W. 818; Mauk v. Brundage, 68 Ohio St. 89, 67 N.E. 152, 62 L.R.A. 477, and St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Thompson, 102 Tex. 89, 113 S.W. 144, held proper 'the action of the jury in relation to the making of awards for exemplary damages in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Embrey v. Holly
... ... It is thus apparent that, in this State, the tortious act of the servant done in the course of his employment is ... Halvorson, 117 Minn. 255, 135 N.W. 818 (1912); State ex rel. Hall v. Cook, 400 S.W.2d 39 (Mo.1966); Bowman v. Lewis, 110 Mont. 435, ... ...
-
Cheney v. Palos Verdes Inv. Corp.
... ... 678 (1971); Joab, Inc. v. Thrall, 245 So.2d 291 (Fla.App.1971); State ex rel. Hall v. Cook, 400 S.W.2d 39 (Mo.1966); Hicks v. Herring, 246 S.C ... ...
-
Cox v. Stolworthy
... ... for trespass upon premises held by the Coxes under a lease from the State of Idaho. In their complaint the plaintiffs alleged wilful and malicious ... Thrall, 245 So.2d 291 (Fla.App.1971); State ex rel. Hall v. Cook, 400 S.W.2d 39 (Mo.1966); Hicks v. Herring, 246 S.C. 429, ... ...
-
Parks v. Union Carbide Corp., 61468
... ... R. Co. v. Whitehead & Kales Co., supra. State ex rel., etc. v. Ferriss, 588 S.W.2d 489 (Mo. banc 1979), subsequently ... Hall v. Cook, 400 S.W.2d 39, 42 (Mo. banc 1966); MAI 10.03; MAI 36.12. A ... ...