Suflas v. Cleveland Wrecking Company

• Decision Date: 14 June 1963
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 27548.
• Citation: 218 F. Supp. 289
• Parties: William V. SUFLAS and P. C. Suflas, copartners, t/a the Town Restaurant v. CLEVELAND WRECKING COMPANY.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

218 F. Supp. 289

William V. SUFLAS and P. C. Suflas, copartners, t/a the Town Restaurant v. CLEVELAND WRECKING COMPANY.

Civ. A. No. 27548.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

June 14, 1963.

Samuel Gorson, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiffs.

Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen, by Howard Gittis, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

JOSEPH S. LORD, III, District Judge.

This is an action seeking both actual damages and punitive damages alleged to have resulted from a wrecking operation carried on by defendant at a property adjoining the business property of the plaintiffs. The jury found that plaintiffs had suffered actual damages in the amount of $5,655.28. In addition, the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs in the amount of $8,000 as punitive damages. Defendant has moved for a new trial. On the question of punitive damages the jury was charged in part as follows:

"* * * In considering whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages you may consider the nature of the defendant's acts, the extent of the interference with the plaintiff, and the plaintiff may recover punitive damages even though he sustained no actual damages. But you will have to determine that, and punitive damages, somewhat like damages that you may have previously been called upon to assess for pain and suffering, for which no one can give you a dollar figure—punitive damages are something like that; no one can give you a dollar figure, but you should bear in mind that they are not compensatory but are assessed by you as punishment and as a deterrent, if you find there was reckless indifference —as a deterrent against such reckless indifference in the future. * * *"

I am convinced that this was error. The law applicable to the recovery of punitive damages is that of Pennsylvania: Adams v. Griffith, 51 F.Supp. 549 (W.D.Mo.1943); Thompson v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Association of Omaha, Nebraska, 83 F.Supp. 656 (N.D.Iowa 1949); Kelite Products v. Binzel, 224 F.2d 131 (C.A.5, 1955); Reynolds v. Pegler, 223 F.2d 429 (C.A.2, 1955).

Two things are clear: (1) punitive damages may not be recovered in Pennsylvania absent a showing of actual damages: Hilbert v. Roth, 395 Pa. 270, 149 A.2d 648 (1959); (2) punitive damages, if recovered, must bear a reasonable relationship to the amount of actual damages: Givens v. W. J. Gilmore Drug Co., 337 Pa. 278, 285, 10 A.2d 12 (1940).

Plaintiffs argue that it was harmless error to instruct the jury that...