64 Ind. App. 268 | Ind. Ct. App. | 1916
This is an action for damages for an assault and battery, alleged to have been committed on appellee by the servants and employes of appellant. . The issues were formed by a complaint, a general denial, and a special paragraph of answer to which a reply of general denial was filed. The jury returned a verdict for $300. Appellant’s motion for a new trial was overruled and judgment was rendered on the verdict. Appellant has assigned as error the overruling of its motion for a new trial.
The substance of the complaint is that appellant is a corporation operating a plant for the production of cotton goods; that appellee and his wife were both employes of appellant and worked in its factory and plant; that L. F. Hilton and George Jones respectively held the positions of overseer and second overseer of said plant, and on November 8, 1913, appellee went to said factory for the lawful purpose of collecting wages due his wife from appellant, and while there in the discharge of such duty was assaulted by said Hilton and Jones, who were then and there acting for and on behalf of appellant and exercising authority and control over appellant’s plant and acting within the scope of their authority; that without cause or provocation they beat, bruised, and wrongfully ejected appellee from appellant’s plant; that by reason of said assault upon him he suffered and still suffers great bodily pain and has suffered great humiliation, loss of employment and income, and has been caused to expend a large sum of money for medical treatment, all to his damage in the sum of $20,000.
Appellant contends that the court erred in giving to the jury certain instructions and in ref using to give certain instructions tendered by appellant. The principal controverted question presented by the instructions
The court correctly instructed the jury on the subject of actual damages and then said: “If you should be of the opinion that the injuries which plaintiff received, if any, were inflicted in a spirit of wanton malice and With intent to injure plaintiff, then you would have a right to add a further sum by way of punishment of the defendant.”
Appellant contends that Hilton and Jones, who committed the assault and battery, if any were committed, are subject to punishment for the offense under the criminal laws of the State; that if any damages are recovered in this suit appellant has a right of action against Hilton and Jones to recover from them the amount it may be compelled to pay on that account; that punitive damages cannot be assessed against appellant because the law does not warrant their assessment against Hilton and Jones. Furthermore, it is contended that neither the complaint' nor the evidence is sufficient to authorize the assessment of punitive damages in this case for the reason that malice is not alleged or proven.
In Citizens Street R. Co. v. Willoeby (1893), 134 Ind. 563, 33 N. E. 627 the court construed the complaint as not proceeding on the theory of a breach of the company’s contract, as a common carrier of passengers, but on the theory that the servant of the company, while acting within the scope of his employment, inflicted upon the appellee a wilful injury by wantonly and recklessly throwing him from the car upon the street. Complaint was made of instructions which permitted the jury, in its discretion, to allow exemplary damages, and in disposing of the question, the opinion states: “The"court did not err in instructing the jury that they might add exemplary damages, in the event they found that the appellant’s conductor inflicted the injury complained of in a spirit of oppressive malice, or
The following decisions have recognized and applied the doctrine that a corporation may be liable for exemplary damages for the wrong of its servant, where such servant could be held amenable to the criminal law for the wrongful act which caused the injury. Jeffersonville R. Co. v. Rogers (1871), 38 Ind. 116, 126, 10 Am. Rep. 103; Jeffersonville R. Co. v. Rogers (1867), 28 Ind. 1, 6, 92 Am. Dec. 276; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Wolfe (1891), 128 Ind. 347, 352, 27 N. E. 606, 25 Am. St. 436; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Bierhaus (1893), 8 Ind. App. 563, 568, 36 N. E. 161; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Goben (1895), 15 Ind. App. 123, 127, 42 N. E. 1116, 43 N. E. 890.
The instructions given when considered as a whole fairly and accurately state the law applicable to the case. Those refused, as far as correct, were substantially covered by those given.
Under the law as above announced, the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict. We find no reversible error. Judgment affirmed.
Note. — Reported in 113 N. E. 1019. Exemplary damages: (a) recovery of, for assault, Ann. Cas. 1915 B 128; (b) validity of a statute authorizing recovery for an act' punishable as a crime, 9 Ann. Cas. 638. See under (1, 2) 13 Cyc 117, 118; (3-5) 13 Cyc 105, 180.