Jones v. Fisher
42 Wis. 2d 209, 166 N.W.2d 175, 1969 Wisc. LEXIS 1110 (1969)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court may reduce a jury's award of compensatory or punitive damages if it is deemed excessive in light of the evidence. Punitive damages are appropriate for conduct that demonstrates a wanton, willful, or reckless disregard for a plaintiff's rights, and the defendant's net income is relevant evidence for determining the amount.
Facts:
- Mr. and Mrs. Fisher, owners of a nursing home, loaned their employee, Mrs. Jones, $200 to purchase a set of dentures.
- Mrs. Jones decided to terminate her employment before the loan was repaid.
- Following her decision to quit, an altercation occurred at the nursing home between Mrs. Jones and the Fishers over the unpaid loan.
- During the altercation, Mrs. Fisher, with Mr. Fisher's assistance, forcibly removed the dentures from Mrs. Jones's mouth.
- The Fishers intended to hold the dentures as security for the repayment of the loan.
- Mrs. Jones was deprived of her dentures for approximately one hour.
- As a result of the incident, Mrs. Jones experienced temporary pain in her arms, back, and mouth, as well as humiliation, embarrassment, and fear.
- Mrs. Jones did not sustain any objective physical injuries and did not consult a physician.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, Mrs. Jones, sued the defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Fisher, in a trial court for assault and battery.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of Mrs. Jones.
- The jury awarded Mrs. Jones $1,000 in compensatory damages.
- The jury also awarded $2,500 in punitive damages against each of the two defendants, for a total of $5,000 in punitive damages.
- The defendants filed post-verdict motions for a new trial, arguing that the damage awards were excessive.
- The trial court denied the defendants' motions and entered judgment on the verdict.
- The defendants (appellants) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are a jury's awards for compensatory and punitive damages for an assault and battery subject to judicial reduction when a court determines they are excessive in relation to the harm suffered and the defendant's conduct?
Opinions:
Majority - Beilfuss, J.
Yes, a jury's damage awards are subject to judicial reduction when they are excessive. The court found both the compensatory and punitive damages awarded in this case to be excessive and ordered them reduced. The court reasoned that the $1,000 compensatory award was excessive because the plaintiff's physical injuries were nominal and her testimony regarding mental distress was vague, subjective, and uncorroborated. The court deemed $500 to be a reasonable compensatory amount. Regarding punitive damages, the court held they were warranted because the defendants' conduct was 'illegal, outrageous and grossly unreasonable,' showing a 'wanton, wilful, or reckless disregard of the plaintiff’s rights.' However, the total award of $5,000 was excessive when considering the defendants' wealth and the goals of punishment and deterrence. The court reduced the punitive damages to $1,000 against each defendant and affirmed that a defendant's net income, not just net worth, is admissible evidence to assess their ability to pay.
Dissenting - Robert W. Hansen, J.
No, punitive damages are not warranted in this case, although the compensatory damages should be sustained. The dissent argues that while the defendants' actions were wrongful and justify the high compensatory award for humiliation, the conduct does not rise to the level of 'outrage frequently associated with crime' necessary to justify punitive damages. The incident was a momentary flare-up and a 'falling-out among friends,' not a malicious or wanton act deserving of punishment. The dissent expresses concern that allowing punitive damages for such a minor altercation expands the doctrine beyond its intended 'narrowest limits' and inappropriately places the power of punishment for minor transgressions in private hands.
Analysis:
This case is significant for its application of the 'Powers rule' (Wisconsin's remittitur standard) to both compensatory and punitive damages, affirming strong judicial oversight of jury awards. It solidifies the principle that punitive damages do not require proof of actual malice but can be based on a reckless disregard for a person's rights. Furthermore, the decision broadens the scope of financial discovery in cases involving punitive damages by establishing that a defendant's net income, not just their net worth, is a relevant factor for the jury to consider, providing a more accurate gauge of their ability to pay.
