Case ID: ri_28/html/0163-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Allen J. Arnold vs. Rhode Island Company.
    JANUARY 23, 1907.
    Present: Douglas, C. J., Dubois, Blodgett, Johnson, and Parkhurst, JJ.
    (1) Master and Servant. Punitive Damages.
    
    While punitive damages are not allowable in a suit based on the tort of a servant unless the principal participates in or approves the servant’s act, yet where the offence had been twice before threatened by servants of defendant, and defendant had notice of the occurrences, for a final assault damages sufficiently large to punish the defendant are allowable.
    Petition for re-argument of case decided in 28 R. I. 118.
    Petition denied.
    
      William J. Brown, for plaintiff.
    
      Henry W. Hayes, Frank T. Easton, Lefferts S. Hoffman and Alonzo R. Williams, for defendant.
   Per Curiam.

The opinion of Judge Brayton in Hagan v. Prov. & Wor. R. R. Co., 3 R. I. 88, approved in Staples v. Schmid, 18 R. I. 232, and in Vogel v. McAuliffe, 18 R. I. 796, holds that punitive damages are not allowable in a suit based on the tort of a servant unless the principal participates in or approves the servant's act. In the case at bar the offence had been twice before threatened by servants of the defendant and the plaintiff had notified the defendant of these occurrences. The final assault, for which this action was brought, may well be considered as growing out of the defendant’s neglect to take measures to insure the observance of its rule after warning that it had been repeatedly disregarded.

We can not say that in these circumstances the jury erred in making the damages sufficiently large to punish the principal for this neglect.

The petition for re-argument is denied.