White v. Benkowski
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
| Writing for the Court | WILKIE |
| Citation | 155 N.W.2d 74,37 Wis.2d 285 |
| Decision Date | 22 December 1967 |
| Parties | Virgil A. WHITE et al., Appellants, v. Paul BENKOWSKI, Jr., et al., Respondents. |
Page 74
v.
Paul BENKOWSKI, Jr., et al., Respondents.
Stephen J. Hajduch, Milwaukee, for appellants.
Francis X. Swietlik, Jr., Milwaukee, for respondents.
Page 76
WILKIE, Justice.
Two issues are raised on this appeal.
1. Was the trial court correct in reducing the award of compensatory damages from $10 to $1?
2. Are punitive damages available in actions for breach of contract?
Reduction of Jury Award.
The evidence of damage adduced during the trial here was that the water supply had been shut off during several short periods. Three incidents of inconvenience resulting from these shut-offs were detailed by the plaintiffs. Mrs. White testified that the lack of water in the bathroom on one occasion caused an odor and that on two other occasions she was forced to take her children to a neighbor's home to bathe them. Based on this evidence, the court instructed the jury that:
'* * * in an action for a breach of contract the plaintiff is entitled to such damages as shall have been sustained by him which resulted naturally and directly from the breach if you find that the defendants did in fact breach [37 Wis.2d 289] the contract. Such damages include pecunitary loss and inconvenience suffered as a natural result of the breach and are called compensatory damages. In this case the plaintiffs have proved no pecuniary damages which you or the Court could compute. In a situation where there has been a breach of contract which you find to have damaged the plaintiff but for which the plaintiffs have proven no actual damages, the plaintiffs may recover nominal damages.
'By nominal damages is meant trivial--a trivial sum of money.'
Plaintiffs did not object to this instruction. In the trial court's decision on motions after verdict it states that the court so instructed the jury because, based on the fact that the plaintiffs paid for services they did not receive, their loss in proportion to the contract rate was approximately 25 cents. This rationale indicates that the court disregarded or overlooked Mrs. White's testimony of inconvenience. In viewing the evidence most favorable to the plaintiffs, there was some injury. The plaintiffs are not required to ascertain their damages with mathematical precision, but rather the trier of fact must set damages at a reasonable amount. Notwithstanding this instruction, the jury set the plaintiffs' damages at $10. The court was in error in reducing that amount to $1.
The jury finding of $10 in actual damages, though small, takes it out of the mere nominal status. The award is predicated on an actual injury. This was not the situation present in Sunderman v. Warnken. 2 Sunderman was a wrongfulentry action by a tenant against his landlord. No actual injury could be shown by the mere fact that the landlord entered the tenant's apartment, therefore damages were nominal and no punitory award could be made. Here there was credible evidence which showed inconvenience and thus actual injury, and the jury's finding as to compensatory damages should be reinstated.
[37 Wis.2d 290] Punitive Damages.
'If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.' 3
Over one hundred years ago this court held that, under proper circumstances, a plaintiff was entitled to recover exemplary or punitive damages. 4
Kink v. Combs 5 is the most recent case in this state which deals with the practice of permitting punitive damages. In Kink
Page 77
the...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leitinger v. Dbart, Inc., No. 2005AP2030.
...by the policy that an injured party is entitled to be made whole by compensatory damages, but not more than whole. White v. Benkowski, 37 Wis.2d 285, 290, 155 N.W.2d 74 (1967). There are only two occasions under Wisconsin law for which an injured party receives damages that exceed damages s......
-
State v. Abbott Labs., No. 2010AP232–AC.
...the injured party, the 1,440,000 violations goes to damages, if it goes to anything, not to forfeitures. See, e.g., White v. Benkowski, 37 Wis.2d 285, 290, 155 N.W.2d 74 (1967) (noting that compensatory damages are awarded to make the injured party whole for the damage suffered while puniti......
-
United Am., LLC v. Wis. Dep't of Transp., No. 2018AP2383
...of compensating an individual for loss is to "make whole the damage or injury suffered by the injured party." See White v. Benkowski, 37 Wis. 2d 285, 290, 155 N.W.2d 74 (1967). As this court explained decades ago regarding land rights, 397 Wis.2d 64 "the measure of damages ... will be the d......
-
Wisconsin Natural Gas Co. v. Ford, Bacon & Davis Const. Corp., No. 77-838
...of the damages is a matter of uncertainty by reason of the nature of the tort is not a ground for refusing damages. White v. Benkowski, 37 Wis.2d 285, 289, 155 N.W.2d 74 (1967); Essock v. Mawhinney, 3 Wis.2d 258, 269, 88 N.W.2d 659 (1958); Maitland v. Twin City Aviation Corp., 254 Wis. 541,......
-
Leitinger v. Dbart, Inc., No. 2005AP2030.
...by the policy that an injured party is entitled to be made whole by compensatory damages, but not more than whole. White v. Benkowski, 37 Wis.2d 285, 290, 155 N.W.2d 74 (1967). There are only two occasions under Wisconsin law for which an injured party receives damages that exceed damages s......
-
State v. Abbott Labs., No. 2010AP232–AC.
...the injured party, the 1,440,000 violations goes to damages, if it goes to anything, not to forfeitures. See, e.g., White v. Benkowski, 37 Wis.2d 285, 290, 155 N.W.2d 74 (1967) (noting that compensatory damages are awarded to make the injured party whole for the damage suffered while puniti......
-
United Am., LLC v. Wis. Dep't of Transp., No. 2018AP2383
...of compensating an individual for loss is to "make whole the damage or injury suffered by the injured party." See White v. Benkowski, 37 Wis. 2d 285, 290, 155 N.W.2d 74 (1967). As this court explained decades ago regarding land rights, 397 Wis.2d 64 "the measure of damages ... will be the d......
-
Wisconsin Natural Gas Co. v. Ford, Bacon & Davis Const. Corp., No. 77-838
...of the damages is a matter of uncertainty by reason of the nature of the tort is not a ground for refusing damages. White v. Benkowski, 37 Wis.2d 285, 289, 155 N.W.2d 74 (1967); Essock v. Mawhinney, 3 Wis.2d 258, 269, 88 N.W.2d 659 (1958); Maitland v. Twin City Aviation Corp., 254 Wis. 541,......