Boetchier v. Staples
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from ap order of the district court for Washington county, Crosby, J., presiding, refusing a new trial. The action was for damages for an aggravated assault and battery.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant from ap order of the district court for Washington county, Crosby, J., presiding, refusing a new trial. The action was for damages for an aggravated assault and battery. The defendant excepted to an instruction that the jury, if they found that the assault and battery was wilful and malicious, were' at liberty to allow exemplary or punitive damages, or not, as they saw fit; and that these could be allowed in addition to the real damages which the plaintiff has sustained. The jury found a verdict of $3,000 for plaintiff.
1Opinion of the CourtGilfillan, C. J.
It is fully settled by the decisions of this court that in actions for torts, where there has been fraud, malice or oppression on the part of the defendant, the jury may allow what are denominated exemplary or punitive damages — that is, damages beyond the mere pecuniary loss or injury to the plaintiff, and intended as in some measure a punishment upon the defendant for the wrong done, and as an example to deter others from similar acts. Lynd v. Picket, 7 Minn. 128, (184;) Fox v. Stevens, 13 Minn. 272; Seeman v. Feeney 19 Minn. 79; McCarthy v. Niskern, 22 Minn. 90.
The rule, according to the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- McCarthy v. NiskernSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
- Fox v. StevensSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1868
- Seeman v. FeeneySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1872
3Cited by6 opinions
- State v. Shevlin-Carpenter Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
- Smith v. BagwellSupreme Court of Florida · 1882
- Carli v. Union Depot, Street Railway & Transfer Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
- Muenkel v. MuenkelSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
- Lewis v. Minneapolis Investment Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.