8 Iowa 29 | Iowa | 1859
-The objection made is not to the concluding part of the instruction; or the words, “ which are always given as a punishment on the defendant.” The argument is directed, alone, to the proposition that plaintiff’s character was not to be taken into the account by the jury, until they come to consider whether he was entitled to vindictive or exemplary damages. In other words, it is said that the jury were told that plaintiff might be entitled to nominal and compensatory damages; and that, in giving compensation, good or bad character was to have no weight. As a general proposition, we are of the opinion, that the rule laid down by the court below, is incorrect. If by compensa
This instruction, however, must be examined in connection with the others ; for, as we have frequently had occasion to remark, the correctness or incorrectness of a particular instruction, depends almost entirely upon the circumstances of each case; and that, therefore, what would be law under one state of facts, would be error, because inapplicable, under another. And thus examined, it was not erroneous; or, if so, it works no prejudice to defendant. The jury were told that there were three kinds of damages: 1. Nominal. 2. Compensatory; and 3. Aggravated, or vindicatory. The circumstances under which nominal .damages would be proper, are stated; and it is then said, that “ compensatory damages are given where the words were spoken without malice, but under circumstances which show a want of caution, and a proper respect for the rights of the plaintiff. Compensatory damages are such as will pay the plaintiff for his expense and trouble in carrying on the suit, and disproving the words.” The jury had been before told that they must And that the words were spoken as charged — that if they so found, they were actionable per se; and the instructions now under examination, with others, were given to guide them in estimating the damages.
Now, the bad character of plaintiff is no bar to his right to recover; it only goes in, what is termed, mitigation of damages. The law, as well as sound morality, dictates that the plaintiff, whose character is bad, corrupt, and bankrupt, should recover less than he who is pure and spotless. If any
"We have suggested, also, that the instruction, if erroneous, worked no prejudice to defendant, and he cannot therefore complain. This, we demonstrate thus: The instruction in effect informs the jury, that they would consider the good or bad character of plaintiff, if they concluded to give him more than compensatory damages. The verdict was $2,800, an amount so large as to show that they did award more than what were styled compensatory damages.. Under such circumstances, they w^ere informed to take into consideration the character of plaintiff. We are bound to presume that they did their duty in this respect, and found, notwithstanding the testimony in relation to his character, that plaintiff was still entitled to the amount returned.
Judgment affirmed.