Case Name: Nesbit v. Gold
Court: Appellate Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1920-02-03
Citations: 72 Ind. App. 435
Docket Number: No. 10,229
Parties: Nesbit v. Gold.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 72
Pages: 435–436

Head Matter:
Nesbit v. Gold.
[No. 10,229.
Filed February 3, 1920.]
Damages.—Excessive Damages.—Assault ancl Battery.—Where plaintiff was shot in the arm with a 22-calibre revolver in the commission of an assault by defendant, and the evidence showed that he had sustained an actual financial loss of $150- and had suffered much physical pain and anguish of mind, together with a sense of shame and humiliation, a verdict of $500 is not excessive and cannot be said to contain any element of punitive damages.
From Franklin Circuit Court; Raymond S. Springer, Judge.
Action by Clyde E. Gfold against John Nesbit. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
F. M. Thompson, Cecil C. Tagne and Willson & Willson, for appellant.
James A. Clifton and I. N. McCarty, for appellee.

Opinion:
Nichols, C. J.
—This was a suit by appellee against appellant for damages growing out of an alleged assault and battery by appellant upon appellee, whereby appellee was shot in the arm by appellant with a twenty-two caliber revolver. There was a verdict and judgment for $500. The only error assigned and relied upon is that the court erred in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial, and under this appellant only presents the specification that the damages assessed were excessive.
It appears by the evidence, and is admitted in appellant's brief, that appellant had been guilty of a wanton and malicious assault upon appellee, and it is claimed that for that reason the jury added to the actual damages which appellee suffered a certain amount for punitive damages. The evidence shows that appellee had suffered an actual financial loss of $150. It further appeared that appellee had suffered much physical pain, and anguish of mind, together with a sense of shame and humiliation, because of the injury inflicted by appellant. We cannot say that there was any element of punitive damages in the verdict, or that it was excessive for any other reason.
The judgment is affirmed.