Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1913-10-14
Supreme Court
THE SUPREME COURT

IN TIE SSS''
=. ~ STATE OF NORTH 0Ako'A
Mnrtln G. yoves, Plaintiff and Aespo"'
dent. w Great Northern Railway Conl'
pany, Il corporation, ana Moses ''o0''
Defendants and Appellants.
This is an action to recover damage 'o'
m assault and battery upon VoVes' IL
passenger, committed by Giddings, a pas
senger conductor of Defendant coh'pa"!'
rhe Jury were instructed thai III 'le''
discretion they, might allow exemplary
damages. in addition to full compensation
damages, as against both Giddings ana
the railway company. From IL recover!
both defendants appeal. HELD:
a.. Punitive damages were not reco'-
a.abie as gains the defendant corpora
ton. - not having participated IN the
wrongful act of its 'employc nor APPROX
ed thereof either before or after its com
mission.
(2). See. 1852, K. C. 1905, authorizing
the recovery of punitive damages by way
of punishment, and their inclusion III the
verdict when the defendant has been
| guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, -
mas IiD itpplittllclt uiuVi tHS W
case, that being Il general statute ap-
plying to all defendants who have acted
with malice; while here the act or the
servant is not imputed to the corporate
master under the doctrine of respondent
superior except because Of grounds OF
nublic policy and necessity to the extent
only of holding such master for full COM
80 ,t,,,, .;,n, ), N fn,. which fhp lpfpnu-
ant company IS concedely liable. Such
doctrine is not extended to authorize pun
tive damages imposed solely as q pun
ishmcnt to the defendant, in the absence
of proof hat such principal authorized,
sanctioned or ratified the malicious act
of the employe.
go Defendant Giddings had been for
more than eleven years in the employ OF
the defendant company as conductor prior
to, the, alleged assault, and the testimony
is undisputed to the effect that this was
the first and only trouble he had ever a
of a similar nature; that he was not in
toxicated and never has used intoXi-
.cants; that complaint was made the next
day after the occurrence to the company
oiliSiilS u lllC Company IN S"iSSA
tinued defendant in their employ, not
discharging him. Held:
(a) Such facts do not constitute proof
of any ratification by the company of
the assault made by the conductor upOn
the plaintiff.
o. because Of failure to discharge
the cmploye the company cannot be held
to have ratified his act, nor is it suf-
ficient evidence of itself to warrant the
submission of the question of ratification
to the jury
(D Other assignments of error exam
med and overruled.
90 AS to defendant Giddings the
evidence was sufficient to sustain the
finding Of the jury that he had acted
wrOngfully ard with malice toward plain
tiff and sufficient to support the instruc-
lions given as to exemplary damages,
the judgment as to him is affirmed.
Co The judgment enter>~ as to the
trial granted.
>.>yllabus by the Court
Appeal from a judgment Of the district
court of Richland county Allen, J.
J Affirmed as to one appellant and re-
versed as to the other. Opinion by Goss,
J. Bruce, j.. dissenting in part.
George w. ~treerks. of Wahpetoll, at
torney for plaintiff and respondent.
Purcell & Divet, of Wahpeton, and
Murphy & Duggan, of Grand Forks, at
for defendants and appellants.