Worthy v. Knight

Stacy, C. J.

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 bis suit.

Cotton v. Fisheries Co., 181 N. C., 151 , 106 S. E., 487 ;

Osborn v. Leach, 135 N. C., 628 , 47 S. E., 811 ;

Waters v. Lumber 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 ;

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.

Compare Gray v. Lentz, 173 N. C., 346 , 91 S. E., 1024 (statutory penalty).

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. R., *500 175 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. Tob. 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. R., 194 N. C., 40 , 138 S. E., 340 ;

Tripp v. Tob. 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 ;

Ammons v. R. R., 140 N. C., 196 , 52 S. E., 731 ;

Jackson v. Tel. Co., 139 N. C., 347 , 51 S. E., 1015 ;

Osborn v. Leach, supra; Chappell v. Ellis, 123 N. C., 259 , 31 S. E., 709 ;

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 serve no useful purpose. Suffice it to say, it is thoroughly established by the pertinent decisions, though the doctrine may be repudiated in some jurisdictions. 17 C. J., 969.

In the case at bar, there is evidence of an aggravated, criminal assault. This calls for an issue of punitive damages to be submitted to the jury.

Saunders v. Gilbert, supra; Sowers v. Sowers, 87 N. C., 303 ;

Pendleton v. Davis, 46 N. C., 98 ;

Causee v. Anders, 20 N. C., 388 .

New trial.