Worthy v. Knight

Citation210 N.C. 498,187 S.E. 771
Decision Date14 October 1936
Docket NumberNo. 236.,236.
PartiesWORTHY. v. KNIGHT.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of North Carolina

Appeal from Superior Court, Lee County; E. H. Cranmer, Judge.

Civil action by J. H. Worthy against R. R. Knight to recover damages for alleged willful and malicious assault. From the judgment, plaintiff appeals.

New trial.

Civil action to recover damages for alleged willful and malicious assault.

Plaintiff's evidence tends to show that on January 11, 1936, he was opening a road on his own land, under order of court, east of the dividing line between his land and the adjoining land of the defendant. "Mr. Knight came up and wanted it laid off so the whole road would be east of the line claimed by him before we agreed on the line."

An argument ensued, and when plaintiff's back was turned, the defendant grabbed him by the arm and plaintiff fell, his feet having become entangled in some wire fencing. Plaintiff got up and ran about 75 yards, when he was overtaken by the defendant, struck 20 or 25 times, knocked down, and his nose broken. Plaintiff testified: "I was doing nothing to Mr. Knight when he assaulted me. Made no fight at him at all. It all occurred on my land."

The defendant's version is slightly different. He first fancied some provocation, then said: "I chased him across the muddy field about 75 yards. Worthy fell and I struck him once and possibly twice, not more than twice. He was kicking and fighting at me. I hit him with my fist."

The jury awarded the plaintiff compensatory damages in the sum of $40. The court declined to submit an issue as to punitive damages (exception), and charged the jury that in no event would they awardthe plaintiff more than compensatory damages. Exception.

Plaintiff appeals, assigning errors.

K. R. Hoyle, of Sanford, for appellant.

Gavin & Jackson, of Sanford, for appellee.

STACY, Chief Justice.

The doctrine of punitive damages occupies a rather anomalous position in our law.

In the first place, such damages are not recoverable as a matter of right. Hodges v. Hall, 172 N.C. 29, 89 S.E. 802. They are allowable only in cases of malicious, wanton, and reckless injury; and, even then, they go to the plaintiff merely because they are assessed in his suit. Cotton v. Fisheries Products Co., 181 N.C. 151, 106 S.E. 487; Osborn v. Leach, 135 N.C. 628, 47 S.E. 811, 66 L.R.A. 648; Waters v. Lbr. Co., 115 N.C. 648, 20 S.E. 718.

Second. Punitive damages may not be awarded unless otherwise a cause of action exists and at least nominal damages are recoverable by the plaintiff. Saunders v. Gilbert, 156 N.C. 463, 72 S. E. 610, 38 L.R.A.(N.S.) 404; Blow v. Joyner, 156 N.C. 140, 72 S.E. 319. In other words, a civil action may not be maintained merely to inflict punishment or to collect punitive damages. Saunders v. Gilbert, supra.

Third. Both the awarding of punitive damages and the amount to be allowed, if any, rest in the sound discretion of the jury, Cobb v. R. Co., 175 N. C. 130, 95 S.E. 92, albeit, the amount assessed is not to be excessively disproportionate to the circumstances of contumely and indignity present in each particular case. Ford v. McAnally, 182 N.C. 419, 109 S.E. 91; Blow v. Joyner, supra; Billings v. Observer, 150 N.C. 540, 64 S.E. 435; Webb v. Tel. Co, 167 N.C. 483, 83 S.E. 568; Gilreath v. Allen, 32 N.C. 67.

Primarily, then, the court is concerned with only two questions: (1) Whether there is any evidence to be submitted to the jury; and (2) whether the award is excessive. The balance is for the twelve. Tripp v. Tobacco Co., 193 N.C. 614, 137 S.E. 871.

The foregoing epitome of the law, as it obtains in this jurisdiction, may be gleaned from the following authorities: Lay v Pub. Co., 209 N.C. 134, 183 S.E. 416; Bonaparte v. Funeral Home, 206 N.C. 652, 175 S.E. 137; Perry v. Bottling Co, 196 N.C 690, 146 S.E. 805; Ferrell v. Siegle, 195 N.C. 102, 141 S.E. 474; Picklesimer v. R. Co, 194 N.C. 40, 138 S.E. 340, 52 A.L. R. 1330; Tripp v. Tobacco Co, supra; Baker v. Winslow, 184 N.C. 1, 113 S.E. 570; Hodges v. Hall, supra; Saunders v. Gilbert, supra; Brame v. Clark, 148 N.C. 364, 62 S.E. 418, 19 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1033, 16 Ann.Cas. 73; Ammons v. R. Co, 140 N.C. 196, 52 S.E. 731; Jackson v. Tel. Co, 139 N.C. 347, 51 S.E. 1015, 70 L.R.A. 738; Osborn v. Leach, supra; Chappell v. Ellis, 123 N.C. 259, 31 S.E. 709, 68 Am.St. Rep. 822; Remington v. Kirby, 120 N.C. 320, 26 S.E. 917. Whether this is the result of a consistent or satisfactory philosophy, we need not now pause to debate. 8 R.C.L. 579; 17 C.J. 968. It would...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 cases
  • Blis Day Spa, LLC v. Hartford Ins. Group
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina
    • 11 d2 Abril d2 2006
    ...of law, although the determination whether punitive damages will be allowed is a question of fact for the jury. Worthy v. Knight, 210 N.C. 498, 187 S.E. 771 (1936). In the present case, Plaintiffs have failed to establish that Hartford committed an identifiable tort which caused harm to Pla......
  • Allred v. Graves, 532
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 17 d5 Janeiro d5 1964
    ...proved and at least nominal damages are recovered by the plaintiff, a jury in its discretion can award punitive damages. Worthy v. Knight, 210 N.C. 498, 187 S.E. 771. In such cases, if a judgment is rendered against a defendant for a cause of action specified in G.S. § 1-410(1), G.S. § 1-31......
  • Newton v. Standard Fire Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 4 d4 Novembro d4 1976
    ...in the pleadings are sufficient to bring the case within the rule allowing punitive damages is a question of law, Worthy v. Knight, 210 N.C. 498, 187 S.E. 771 (1936); Picklesimer v. R.R., 194 N.C. 40, 138 S.E. 340 (1927), although the determination whether punitive damages will be allowed a......
  • Di Frega v. Pugliese
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 1 d2 Junho d2 2004
    ...in the pleadings are sufficient to bring the case within the rule allowing punitive damages is a question of law. Worthy v. Knight, 210 N.C. 498, 500, 187 S.E. 771, 772 (1936). Plaintiff argues that defendants' conduct was willful and wanton because defendants entered into a conspiracy to t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT