Strawn v. Ingram
191 S.E. 401, 1937 W. Va. LEXIS 56, 118 W. Va. 603 (1937)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Consent to engage in mutual combat is not a valid defense to a civil action for assault and battery, as the state has an interest in preventing breaches of the peace.
Facts:
- Ray Strawn and Arley Ingram mutually agreed to engage in a physical fight.
- During the fight, Ingram struck Strawn on the head with an iron bar.
- Ingram also intentionally gouged Strawn's eye with his thumb and hit Strawn with his fist after he was on the ground.
- As a result of the fight, Strawn suffered a fractured skull, a severe and permanent brain contusion, lacerations to his face and head, and permanently impaired vision.
Procedural Posture:
- Ray Strawn sued Arley Ingram in a state trial court to recover damages for personal injuries.
- The trial court struck Ingram's special plea of justification because it was not filed in time.
- The trial court directed a verdict in favor of Strawn on the issue of liability.
- The jury returned a verdict for Strawn, awarding $800 in actual damages and $25 in punitive damages.
- Ingram, the defendant, appealed the judgment against him to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party's consent to engage in mutual combat bar them from recovering civil damages for injuries sustained during the fight?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Hatcher
No, a party's consent to engage in mutual combat does not bar them from recovering civil damages for injuries sustained during the fight. The court reasoned that where a combat involves a breach of the peace, the mutual consent of the parties is unlawful and does not deprive the injured party of the right to recover for damages resulting from the unlawful acts of the other. Citing Cooley on Torts, the court affirmed the principle that consent to an assault is no justification when it constitutes a breach of the peace. While the plaintiff's own fault in agreeing to fight may be considered by a jury to mitigate or preclude punitive damages, it cannot be used to reduce the actual damages awarded for the injuries. The court also held that procedural errors by the trial court, such as an improper jury instruction on a minor damage element, were waived by the defendant's failure to make a specific objection, and a small, erroneous mandatory punitive damages award could be corrected by the appellate court without a full reversal.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the public policy exception to the defense of consent in tort law. It establishes that individuals cannot consent to a breach of the peace, thereby rendering such consent legally ineffective in a civil suit for assault and battery. The ruling distinguishes between actual and punitive damages, allowing a plaintiff's culpability to affect the latter but not the former, ensuring injured parties can be compensated for their actual losses. Furthermore, the case serves as a strong reminder of the procedural requirement for specific objections at trial, emphasizing that general objections are insufficient to preserve an issue for appeal, particularly regarding complex jury instructions.
