120 F. 860 | U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York | 1903
The motion for a new trial upon the ground that the verdict was excessive has led to a careful reconsideration of the case as it was presented to the jury. The reasons for the conclusion which has been reached may be briefly stated.
It is exceedingly difficult to fix the boundary line between a just award and an excessive one in a case like this. The libelous article published by the defendant was extensively circulated in the state where the plaintiff resided, as well as in other states where he was known, and excited comment and discussion. It was a highly sensational article, occupying two or three columns of the -defendant’s newspaper, prefaced by startling headlines. In substance it represented that for several years certain prominent business men of Kemper county, Miss., had engaged in an extensive conspiracy to defraud insurance companies, the scheme being to procure policies for the benefit of the conspirators upon the lives of aged and decrepit persons, and, when desirable, to hasten the death of the insured. It gave an estimate of the extent of the operations of the conspirators. This was, in effect, that they were beneficiaries in ioo policies; that 6o of the policies had been canceled by the insurance companies; that 30 of the insured had died of disease; that 12 had died of poison; and that the lives of 15 others had been attempted. It stated that the plaintiff was one of the conspirators; that another, Dr. Eib
The case was one where the jury was abundantly justified in awarding punitive damages as well as compensatory damages. The circumstances attending the publication of the article authorized them to find that it had been published recklessly, without any attempt to investigate its truth, and with the object of producing a sensational article which would appeal to the credulous and to the tastes of those who enjoy reading narratives of fraud and crime. The plaintiff was a man of respectable business and social standing in his state, and had a wide acquaintance. To what extent his reputation actually suffered by the article is of course largely a matter of conjecture. While it would seem that discriminating readers would regard it as a tissue of exaggeration interwoven with an attenuated thread of fact, many, and perhaps the majority, probably would not analyze it intelligently, and may have inferred that the plaintiff was guilty of the crimes imputed to him. If the jury had awarded compensatory damages only, it cannot be safely said that $10,000 would have been extravagant. Nor can it be safely said, if they had awarded $10,000 by way of exemplary damages, that amount would have been extravagant. What would have been a reasonable award for either element of damages is a question upon which fair-minded and intelligent men would differ widely.
In actions like this, in which damages can be gauged by no fixed standard, but necessarily rest in the sound discretion of the jury, the court ought not to interfere with a verdict for excessiveness unless it is so unreasonable as to indicate that they were influenced by passion, prejudice, partiality, or corruption. The jurors in this case were men of exceptional intelligence, and no doubt is entertained that the verdict was the result of their conscientious convictions.
A new trial will be granted unless the plaintiff stipulates to reduce the recovery to $20,000.