*1 862 words, I not think In other do rights.
creed its let allowed to-
that- should be
supplemental and still de- go unused water
prive the waters plaintiff of some irri- creek which needs to Clara
Santa precious too
gate its land. Water prac- allow such a
these states western pre- from the I dissent
tice. that extent To opinion.
vailing participate here-
WOLFE, J., does C.
in. P.2d OLDROYD.
WILSON v.
No.
Supreme of Utah. Court 3, 1954.
March *3 Roy- Provo, Worthen, Arnold
George W.
Hayes Ramp-
lance,
&
Springville, Pugsley,
ton,
City,
appellant.
Lake
for
Salt
Provo,
testimony,
Christenson,
family.
to the Wilson
Plaintiff’s
for
&
Christenson
witnesses,
corroborated
described
respondent.
marriage
happy
one until the “af
Oldroyd
fair” with
will
Dr.
of
we
CROCKETT, Justice.
hear more
the fall of
later.
In
Geral
judg-
recovered
Berkeley Wilson
Dale
dine, who had
as a
been trained
nurse
$25,000
$50,000 compensatory and
ment
Hospital
Payson
pre
had worked at the
on
L.
Dr. Merrill
damages against
punitive
occasions,
working
during
vious
was
there
affections
alienation of
Oldroyd for
vacation
one of the other nurses.
against de-
found
jury
wife.
plaintiff’s
She later informed her
that she
husband
slander, but
for
his counterclaim
fendant
on,
thought
stay
although
she would
ren-
medical services
him $719
allowed
quit,
he wanted her to
reluctantly
he
con
off-
family which is an
plaintiff’s
dered
During
sented to
wishes.
time
judgment.
against
set
aware of
became
the fact that
his wife
(A) Denial of defend-
assigned:
Errors
Oldroyd
hospital
staff had more
complaint
in-
to dismiss the
motion
ant’s
friendly
than a
interest in each
He
other.
sufficient;
grant
a directed
(B) refusal
a definite change
noted
in his wife’s atti
aside
to set
verdict
verdict; (C) refusal
;
home,
tude she became irritable in the
excessive;
(D) submission to
affection, was,
fact,
showed no
in
frigid
damages; (E) ad-
question
Upon inquiry
him.
toward
about the mat
testimony concerning defendant’s
mission
Oldroyd,
Geraldine,
ter Dr.
and also
in
evidence;
of certain
wealth;
exclusion
(F)
needed an abdominal
formed him
she
the instructions.
in
(G) errors
might'
operation
thought
which Mr. Wilson
he;
irritability
attitude,
explain her
addressing our
to'
attention
Before
She
work
the'
consented.
continued
until
recited,
in
which will do
just
the errors
ope-'
January,
when she
2nd of
summary
listed,
of the es
brief
order
-
upon. Although it was later
facts,
light
rated
most favor
learned
viewed
sential
least meretricious
had'
that at
flirtation
plaintiff1 is in order.
able
going on between
Dr.'
been
Geraldine and
had
Geraldine
Dale Wilson
Oldroyd,
occurrence
that morning
an
Payson,
1939; they lived
Utah
married
definite
the first
evidence Mr. Wilson had
children;
two
Mr.
he entered the room the
As
doctor
it.
*4
years
past
in the Veter
for the
six
worked
bedside; he
his wife’s
at
heard Geral
up by.
Program
Training
Farm”
set
“On
ans
say
honey, you
“Oh
doctor,
dine
to
like
Department
Dr.
Education.
State
curly
hair”- and
lips and
the doctor’s
red
lipstick.
physician.
smeared with
Oldroyd
a friend and
face was
Merrill
Cab,
Utah,
Inc.,
1. Gibbs Blue
affirmed, Utah,
A to stop Payson, in- importuned him to and discussed the doctor discovered love denied Dale, with his--home. doctor affair terfering January with and on 31st a Dale and assured any improper meeting conduct “final” between Geraldine and the Dale, was his best friend. arranged, doctor was ostensibly that pur- for the pose intend- however, discontinuing relationship. the doctor warned .he Oldroyd means he by every Mrs. protect his home was an unobserved ed to witness to January, Geraldine told Early meeting. in It lasted for about could. 3 hours Oldroyd. Sensing that during couple Dale loved she saw the embracing she about changed, kissing had not relationship each the situation other. Janu- ary again visited the defendant did end following 19th Dale this meeting; to leave pled him with doctor and office Geraldine later meetings latter’s had alone, letter referring Nevada, to a Lake Vegas, Salt and Las and con- The doc- to correspond to tinued through had written Geraldine. doctor intermedi- aries, it writing agreeing destroy admitted each it and tor denied the letters him upon receipt. with Dale met evening deposition, when In next Oldroyd the lettcr produced admitted that he Mrs. had kissed Geraldine as early November, addressed handwriting own in the doctor’s and an indefinite num- since, Wilson, gone ber of times Geraldine who had then and that part the fore Riverside, her December he father’s home 'California. of had her he told loved her. pla- He stated to The letter reveals much more than álso his own wife that he de- help Oldroyd professed financially, tonic interest Dr. sired to Geraldine but that It was with of love he could not do long Geraldine. filled terms so as as she was Dale’s endearment, beginning: “Geraldine doctor wife. The called his own wife to you ever I it’s testify Sweetheart: —If need to- for him on the counterclaim for my night” concluding slander. On “Remember cross-examination dear she admit- she ted that knew of her husband’s you. you —all the times I’ve I romance told I love Wilson; with Mrs. occasion of still do a thousand fold—believe me-—-Write Vegas last Las meeting between her your often sweetheart humble servant— husband and Geraldine she had not known the one who cares.” The return address was of his tipped by Dale; whereabouts until off evidently party, if the to third so that let- her husband point it a made call ter were not fall returned would into the day next her the Valley, Idaho, from Sun hands of the doctor’s wife. allay suspicions of Vegas Las trip; promise Dale exacted a from the doctor given that she had considerable thought to- to write another letter to advising Geraldine up trying to break affair Geraldine go husband, back to her which the which she averred had up continued to the *5 prop- diffi- matters. Each of these was present The marital theories time of the trial. erly jury; they rejected the in a divorce submitted to culties of the Wilsons resulted prosecuted. plain- defendant’s and found for subsequently was claims the suit and this tiff. complaint contains the A. C. Defendant claims that the verdict of allegations cause action
essential
of a
should be
grossly
set aside because
so
it is
(a) The fact
of
for alienation
affections:
clearly
excessive as to
it was
manifest that
marriage, (b)
of
defendant wilful
that the
expression
an
passion
prejudice.
of
and
intentionally,
the
ly
wife’s
(c)
and
alienated
resulted,
avers,
This
he
from the fact
affections, (d)
the loss of the
resulting in
the
county
action was tried in his home
wife,
society
the
comfort,
and consortium of
where he was well
a
known as
and
a doctor
justify punitive damages) a
(e) (to
and
man,
comparatively wealthy
by jury who
a
Particularly under
malice.
our
charge of
were lacking in
the broadmindedness
a statement
new Rules of Civil Procedure
necessary
tolerance
appraise
his conduct
it
ultimate
sufficient and
is
facts is
in its true
a
light
only
breach of social
unnecessary
set forth
detail the con
standards,
who,
being unjustifiably
duct,
language
the artifices used to
conduct,
impropriety
shocked
of his
accomplish the result.
threw
passion
reason
winds
let
In
As to the directed verdict:
B.
prejudice
prevail in imposing what he
charge that
general
the evi
to the
addition
characterizes
an
award
unconscionable
make
the elements of
failed to
out
dence
damages against
of
him.
truth
this
to, the
just
defend
action
referred
cause of
clearly indicated,
charge
says, by
is
First, that Mr.
two contentions:
ant added
appears
largest
fact that
be
such
this
already lost the affections
award ever made in this
state.
Insofar
left
wife,
nothing
for him
there was
aware,
true;
are
is
this
is not
Second,
alienate;
that his conduct
largest
history
in the limited
Wilson,
admittedly in
although
with Mrs.
state,
among
cases in this
but is
highest
below the standard
somewhat
discreet
anywhere.
be found
properly
expected
could be
of rectitude
transitory flirtation
him,
might
largest
observed that
It
time,
in due
thus
subsided
have
time,
would
made for the first
must be
award
deprivation
constituted
would
first award ever made would
otherwise the
affections.
full
A
wife’s
that ever could
re-
plaintiff
maximum
become
of this verdict
is to be found
the fact
The amount
has
covered.
answer
range of verdicts for such
conflicting
company in the
Was
these
the evidence
8(a)
Ü.R.C.P.
Rule
Wood- amount of damages
In the Vermont case of
must be determined
wrongs.
n
Woodhouse,3
against par-
largely upon
particular
an action
cir-
house v.
facts and
n
of a
ents for alienation of' the affections
cumstances of the individual case.
husband, recovery
$125,000
upheld;
Whether the verdict here is
excessive
$100,000,
$25,000 was
of which
verdict
a perplexing question.
gainsay
will
No one
punitive damages,
in Mohn
was affirmed
*6
that the task
placing monetary
value
$75,000
finally approved
Tingley;4
upon the affections
fraught
of a wife is
Oskamp
Appellate Court
in
v.
the Ohio
grave difficulty. The valuation is of course
conspiracy
Qskamp5
existed to
where a
strictly
not on a
out-of-pocket basis and
wife.
It is true
alienate the affections of a
computed
cannot be
solely from contribu-
existed
these
special
fact situations
in
of money
expected,
tions
to be
nor the value
along with others
which are collated
cases
of domestic services alone. There are other
relating to the excessiveness
verdicts
intangible but definite values in the com-
1282 which in-
A.L.R.
such actions at 69
society,
fort and
love
companionship,
showing other verdicts in ex-
cludes cases
privileges
upon
attendant
es-
$75,000
had been modified
which
cess of
tate of marriage for
compensation
plaintiff
already
because
had
trial courts
awarded,
can
be
up
not
to the time of
in a divorce ac-
property
settlement
divorce,
permanent
but for
loss of such
marriage
tion,6
obvious-
because
or
conjugal rights.8
spouse
re-
ly
either
as a
of little worth to
family
question
life.7 Under
The
sult of troublesome
of damages in such
facts,
jury
instance
found
seems best
we must assume
addressed
to the dis
jury;
cretion of a
case,
they
for re-
homes,
instant
the reasons
spouses,
them
have
own,
present here.
children of their
just
experienced
are not
duction
stated
are
practical
in the
analogous,
Although
daily life,
amounts assessed in
affairs of
'
situations, are have
exactly
points
view;
different
similar
though
they
are
helpful
the amount afforded the
general guide
as a
benefit
seeing
and hearing
allowed,
parties
may properly
and their
of'damages
be
witnesses. Because of
their advantaged position
are
courts
ex
import
all of the decisions
tremely
subject
upon this
.is that
reluctant
to interfere with their
...examined
397,
91,
211,
A. 758.
7 N.J.Misc.
affirmed
99 Vt.
130
150 A.
3.
8 N.
353.
J.Misc.
470,
This not mean that whenever does taken into points one consideration when finger at another and accuses estimating dam- ages.” him of a real or fancied violation of Also,
rights im *7 that a should be allowed to “ * ** pose liability; nor, wrong even that if a has the mere that it fact [the committed, actually jury jury, been a must be than another more verdict] given court, the privilege up might or more than dividing of this the de property given, fendant’s plaintiff. the It or even more than the evidence with is justified, responsibility conclusively must be the does not of courts to show passion, determine in that it preju- the was the result first whether of instance * * dice, corruption there or upon is a reasonable basis which. a jury The could Chief there legal wrong determine that a stated that be- has Justice plaintiff been done fore we could set aside a verdict ex- would form cessive, the recovery; ap basis of “the facts must be such that ex- likewise to the ply general law, the yardstick cess can be as a matter of determined of “what reason able men could or the verdict must be so damage find” to excessive as to be award compensation ed as injury. for If shocking clearly an the to one’s conscience and to transgresses verdict passion, prejudice, that limit so that corruption it can indicate or on properly be said that it is so grossly part jury.” ex- the the of Co., Utah, 123, 9. v. See Stickle Union Pacific R. 109 Utah 184 P.2d 127. 251 P.2d -370 it cannot rule that in the a matter of law validity verdict
The of the stand. that by fact the' instant is reinforced case by approval judge given
the trial has be can damages Punitive D. modify As we it. refusing to vacate or af of awarded in'an action alienation “ *** Cain,11 Geary stated finding fections, a only there is where the doubt, the action case of deliberate that position of malice.12 It defendant’s is this prevail. Otherwise trial court should finding; support the no such evidence would usurp find itself will or later court sooner be further, damages punitive that if and the jury both ing the functions of here, they allowed would recoverable be * * court, trial every action, nature because always affections, must alienation of any showing here is no There that it would wrong. be a wilful The fact by the affirmatively or said done thing difficult,—perhaps impossible,—for a passion indicate judge jury which would or negligently al cause action to arise for amount except prejudice, ienating the another man’s affections of properly advised jury were verdict. necessarily de wife not does mean in as they could consider the elements always fendant’s conduct be such would they were entitled damages; sessing the jury would it to find be malicious. plaintiff and his accept version of wilfully and jury witnesses that before trial told court away affections wrongfully damages alienated awarded capable, industrious who was a preponderance of the evi- Mrs. must find from a woman, and who thereto attractive “that dence, wilfully the defendant wife a loving and devoted disregard fore had been and wanton gross plaintiff rearing plaintiff’s with whom plaintiff’s and mother rights induced happy home. Were children in desert her from affections to withdraw interfere, formula to sub no we know of plaintiff give love to defendant ** loss made of this support for the evaluation This instruction finds stitute except our own to substitute Rugg ap- we said in v. Tolman13 in in what proper exemplary as to the amount dam- proving theirs the statement judgment for compensatory damages. Ency.L. p. in the (2d Ed.) in 12 E. ages made A. & Yiewed “ principles “gross” constantly hereinabove discuss the term light of 28: -While connection, here is ed, many explain believe the verdict cases we do used in *8 exemplary to shock the conscience the by declaring excessive rule of greatly requires negligence required we in such damages degree are to so unreasonable 295, 54, 340, 416, P. 423. 255 39 57. 11. 69 Utah Utah 13. 117 P. Annotation, A.L.R. 16 1316. 12. See positive to amount remains, however, to wantonness and There a se-ri- misconduct, manifesting apprehension puni conscious dis- ous as to the amount of regard of rights damages of others and a reck- tive ($25,000). awarded Just ” less to consequences.’ indifference with compensatory damages, peculiarly it is province jury within the of the to determine evidence,
Without
detailing
further
exemplary
whether
damages should be
we
briefly
observe
that even after Mr. Wil
by
approval
awarded.15 The verdict and its
son
Oldroyd
importuned
and Mrs.
him
the trial court in
to
failing
vacate or modi
stop,
to
Oldroyd
continued to make love
fy-it are entitled to deference. Yet as to
His
urged
Geraldine.
counsel
that he
awarded,
the amount
the situation is not ex
did not intend that she leave her husband
actly the
respect
same as it
com
is with
and that
dismayed
he was “the most
inman
pensatory damages. Such
amount does
County”
Utah
may
when she did so. This
upon any
rest
plaintiff;
loss
suffered
be so
susceptible
but the evidence is
aof
compensatory
pur
damages are for that
interpretation
reasonable
very much to the
pose. Punitive damages are awarded on the
contrary. Moreover,
charge
is
defendant
theory
permissible
is
of cer
case
that.it
able
probable
with the natural and
conse
aggravated
permit
wrongs
pri
tain
quences of
his conduct which would be
vate
litigant,
public interest,
im
alienate the
wife from her
affections of the
pose
penalty upon
the defendant as a
husband.
legal
of such
effect
conduct
punishment and to deter others from en
was aptly
Supreme
characterized
gaging in similar offenses. The reasons
Court of
case
Missouri in the
Butter-
why
jury
judge
partic
the trial
are
field
enticing away
v. Ennis:14
“The
inherently ularly advantaged
another man’s
compensatory
act
to fix
dam
is an
wrong
wrong,
necessarily
to be
known
ages are
less cogent
much
here. For
and, if
the alienation from
husband
liberty
reason
feel more
at
to review
done,
intentionally
implies [permits
the law
modify
punitive
dam
award
toas
finding
malice from these facts.”
of]
ages.
(We
words.)
insert the bracketed
We
reasonably
conclude that
be
There
ba
is no definite formula or
continuing
lieve
make love to
that in
upon
sis
damages
can be
desist,
after being warned to
Mrs. Wilson
computed. They
to fall
within the
and with
wilfully
did
be,so
reason;
dispropor
limits
“must not
plaintiff’s
disregard
rights
wanton
injury
damage
tionate
the actual
punitive damages
that an award
plainly
as to
manifest that
were the
justified.
431;
Utah,
Gaisford,
Mo.App.
15.
186 S.W.
Evans
P.2d
cases at
result of They in One and cir- b&treated two classes. facts can be correlated the other including of questions cumstances them asked shown in evidence relates to Geraldine harmony seeking of defendant’s wealth. Wilson to show lack They plaintiff. in marriage her with the testimony admitting As E. to objectionable were reasons: for various condition: concerning financial defendant’s hearsay con- them for as to Some of asked in the It determine judge is for the trial to father; versations with her others asked are such instance whether the facts firsi give her her as her sub- found, so, to conclusions to it is well that malice can be and if interpretation jective dur- of “conditions” proper that evidence settled it is to receive Dale, ing marriage, her or the “attitude” of of and consider the wealth general of a nature were often bearing upon the of dama issue they of that could call for answers violative It that the amount ges.17 is obvious same provides, our statute19 which husband money punishment “a a might greater of be against cannot examined for or poor rich man than would be to a one. consent, for or without her a wife Oldroyd practi nor is not a successful Dr. consent; against her husband without has wealth in tioner also considerable marriage during nor can either or after- properties sheep, aggre lands other be, other, wards without the of the consent gating multiples judgment several any as to Nevertheless, examined communication made against rendered him. con one during marriage to the sidering all of the facts and circumstances ** judge correctly shown, The trial indi- including the that fact the defendant already knowledge cated to charged very counsel is with a substantial acquired facts out the confidence judgment compensatory damages, we for excluded, $25,000 marriage relationship opinion must be are of the that the award of further exemplary damages questions indicated that should excessive. This reversal, specific enough properly so he could require may but we or does rule a reduction of the We are as whether forth bring der verdict.18 would opinion susceptible objections. amount should be re above answers $5,000. duced willing Mrs. anxious Wilson was both testify Oldroyd against for point by point analysis
F. A permitted plaintiff. Actually rulings assigned she was the numerous on evidence Duffy supra, Co., Utah, Gaisford, 18. v. Union Pac. Evans v. at R. 218 16. 247 P.2d page 435. P.2d 1080 and authorities therein cited. (1) Torts, Restatement Vol. 908 78-24-8 Sec. U.C.A.1953. , (2); Kilgore Kilgore, Fla. 305; 19 So.2d see also A.L.R. 1321. testimony impeach married could not Mr. her testify fully to difficulties prior conven- for it showed no inconsistent state the absence plaintiff, life with lack of ment him. Nor home, fact that her husband’s iences n consideration heard it be her, she had lost considered as an admission against given doctor en- his interest because it was him before all affection for believed, evidence, proceeding duty if where he had life, neither nor tered deny explain.20 opportunity conten- Whether defendant’s have sustained would *10 he heard such affections to al- statements or no not would there were tion that way vary, no explain tend to or contradict ienate. testimony. said, He had not it was class of evidence The other contention, not his the marriage was improperly says ex was which defendant happy at the time of the divorce proceeding, questions put to Dale consists of cluded only up to his wife’s “romance” with examination, purportedly cross on Oldroyd. Hoyt Judge appears to testimony marriage that his impeach his to patient been and fair in his rulings which attempted this happy. Defense counsel was uniformly were correct in excluding a good testimony of his wife’s by reading portions incompetent deal of evidence. We find no proceed in the divorce deposition taken any proper indication that evidence was ex marital difficulties and concerning their ings prejudice cluded the of the defendant. you your hear plaintiff: “Did asking then G. Defendant maintains that the you testify?” “Did know she wife so —or “ * * * judge’s instruction that long so then urged ?” Defendant so sworn marriage as the status continues a between to ask these that he was entitled insists now wife, presumes husband the law prove truth the of her questions, not possibility there is a of reconciliation even her heard but that Mr. Wilson statements they have become though estranged or made us ac testify. Counsel has * * marital have had differences authority rule, quainted or reason jury by telling Misled the them that there are supports proposition and we which this presumption possibility a the of rec been It to have aware none. seems which weigh against onciliation plain attempt get these statements Although concept evidence. criticizing her husband and Geraldine “presumption” has been burdened with 'a evi marriage in the record as substantive mystification by legal great deal of writers present at trial and dence. She fortunately lay jurors judges, are her of the lack first hand to version mysterious testified implica unaware of its blissfully They undoubtedly Her serenity marriage. former tions. understood the Wigmore Ed., 1072, p. Evidence, IY 3rd See. the defendant you not hold event should an ordinary simply in sense its term you preponderance from a liable unless find “the law equivalent phraseology such wrongful acts or that the evidence cognizance of” “the law takes or considers” were part of the defendant on the conduct in- The possibility of a reconciliation. plain- inducing controlling cause of meaning gives its true struction her affection from to withdraw tiff’s wife wrongful and continuing, “it is therefore plaintiff.” instructions viewed make unlawful for another man court whole, fully presented defend- fairly wilfully en- love to married woman or to were various theories of defense and ant’s affection, any, up courage give her if * * way prejudicial to him. no husband, for her If this were impunity make any person could with not.so damages is judgment as to there had a married woman where love'to $5,000; judgment as so modi- reduced to is not estrangement; been friction or affirmed. fied is the instruction do not believe the law. We party bear his costs. own Each misunderstanding susceptible of given is by defendant. claimed WADE, JJ., concur. McDONOUGH and may great is true that there
It HENRIOD, (concurring). damages or little affection and that Justice proportionate to that is tak should puni- opinion reduces the Since the main *11 away other in from the husband. In en noted, I concur. damages figure tive amply readily had safeguarded the structions the court more I have concurred would altogether ex theory reg'ard thereto damages been eliminated defendant’s substantially in jury. He also advising the we have reduced pressly could re- conduct of the record compensatory damages. or structed, “If the acts entirely than the not himself, any plaintiff cause himself was or plaintiff flects type the con of ac- indiscretion, constituted from defendant free acts of ”* * * upon in some plaintiff’s pursues he frowned loss tion cause, trolling point where, together jurisdictions, recover, affections, not then abrogated has been actions, it with similar jury that the would conversely told the same statute, reasons.1 obvious plaintiff’s —for wife fell love “if the 'be true any affirmative in without WOLFE, participate here- from the de encouragement J., does C. ducement * * further, And “in in. fendant Ac- Relations, and Related McCurdy, of Affections 3rd Alienation Domestic Cases Leg tions, 684; Feisinger, p. Ed., Wis.L.Rev. Current See Promise, Affecting Breach islation