Legal Opinion · Dissent

Wolfsen v. Hathaway

California Supreme Court

Decided September 28, 1948No. Sac. 5849Published

1DissentCarter, J.

I dissent.

In my opinion the determination of the jury and the trial court allowing the plaintiffs exemplary damages should be affirmed. The existence of malice requisite to the allowance of exemplary damages is always a question for the jury; it must always be submitted to them to find whether it existed. As the question of maliciousness, wilfulness or wantonness with which the act was done is left to the jury, its determination that the defendant acted maliciously should be affirmed. The jury sees and hears the witnesses, and it necessarily follows that whether or not the witness appears to…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Day v. WoodworthSupreme Court of the United States · 1852
  2. Nichols v. MitchellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  3. Hicks v. ReisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  4. Gudger v. MantonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  5. Market Street Railway Co. v. GeorgeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API