Case Name: FLORENCE LEIFERMANN, Respondent, v. FRED DANIELS, Appellant
Court: North Dakota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: North Dakota
Decision Date: 1919-12-31
Citations: 44 N.D. 76
Docket Number: 
Parties: FLORENCE LEIFERMANN, Respondent, v. FRED DANIELS, Appellant.
Judges: Christianson, Ch. J., and Grace, and Birdzell, LL, concur.
Reporter: North Dakota Reports
Volume: 44
Pages: 76–83

Head Matter:
FLORENCE LEIFERMANN, Respondent, v. FRED DANIELS, Appellant.
(176 N. W. 9.)
Assault and battery — indecent assault — verdict Iield not to be excessive.
In an action for indecent assault, where the plaintiff, the mother of two little children, was employed by the defendant, a bachelor fifty-nine years old, as his housekeeper, and where, during a period of two weeks’ employment, the defendant attempted at various times to take indecent liberties with the plaintiff, finally culminating in a bolder attempt, which compelled the plaintiff to leave the defendant’s employ, to protect her virtue and integrity, all of which occasioned to her suffering, humiliation, and disgrace, — it is held that a verdict of $2,500 is not so excessive as to disclose the result of passion and prejudice of the jury.
Opinion filed December 31, 1919.
Action for indecent assault in District Court, Barnes County, Coffey, J.
From a judgment for the plaintiff and an order denying a new trial the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
M. J. Englert, for appellant.
Excessive damages appearing to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice, and insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict, are grounds for a new trial. Comp. Laws 1913, § 7660, subds. 5, 6; Wagoner v. Bodal (N. D.) 164 N. W. 147; Carpenter v. Dickey, 26 N. D. 176, 143 N. W. 964; Williams v. Budgett (Iowa) 172 N. W. 283.
A. P. Paulson, for respondent.
The evidence shows that there was physical and nervous impairment, and humiliation and mental suffering and sickness, which condition has persisted for a number of months, and that this condition was likely to continue for an indeterminate period and perhaps permanently, and for that reason the verdict and judgment of $2,500 cannot be said to be excessive, and must be sustained. Comp. Laws, § 7165; Eev. Codes 1905, § 6582; Civ. Codes 1877, § 1967; Ecv. Codes 1899, § 4997.
Measure of damages in tort is the same as at common law. Need-ham v. Jalvorsen, 22 N. D. 594, 135 N. W. 203.
Damages are recoverable even when the injury is proximate, .and could not be reasonably anticipated. Ouverson v. Grafton, 5 N. D. 281, 65 N. W. 676; Newell v. Witcher, 53 Vt. 589, 38 Am. Eep. 703; Fay v. Parker, 53 N. LI. 342, 16 Am. Eep. 279; Shoemaker v. Sonju, 15 N. D. 518.
In an action for damages for an indecent assault, a verdict may be rendered on the uncorroborated testimony of the plaintiff, though a conviction could not be had thereon in a criminal prosecution for rape. Eogers v. Winch, 76 Iowa, 546, 41 N. W. 214.
The jury may consider not only the physical injury and suffering, and expense and loss of time and wages, but the mental anguish, shame, and dishonor suffered by the injured party. Ward v. Blackwood, 48 Ark. 396, 3 S. W. 624; Kaber v. Hutson, 5 Ind. 322, 61 Am. Dec. 96; Wolf v. Trinkle, 103 Ind. 355, 3 N. W. 110; Lucas v. Finn, 35 Iowa, 9; Marden v. Murphy, 85 Iowa, 669, 52 N. W. 62.
Declaration of defendant, of his criminal intentions against plaintiff, are proper evidence to show aggravation of the damages sustained by plaintiff. Pratt v. Ayler, 4 Han*. & J. 448.
Under a declaration alleging sickness and pain to have been caused by an assault, a permanent bodily infirmity produced or aggravated thereby may be shown. Johnson v. McKee, 27 Mich. 471.
The aggravation of an existing disease or injury by an assault is as reasonable ground of complaint and as proper an element to be considered in estimating damages as the creation of a new one. Elliott v. Van Burén, 33 Mich. 49.
A person receiving a wilful injury from another is entitled to recover compensatory damages therefor, irrespective of the motive of the wrongdoer. Boyle v. Case, 18 Fed. 880.
Prospective damages are recoverable in trespass for assault and battery. Barlow v. Lowder, 35 Ark. 492.
Where plaintiff proves that he sustained the actual damage by defendant’s attack, he is entitled to recover as much in value as his proof showed he suffered, whatever the amount may be. Tatnall v. Courtney, 6 Houst. (Del.) 434.
Plaintiff is entitled to recover such an amount of damages as will compensate him for the injury sustained. Jones v. Jones, 71 111. 562.
Plaintiff may recover damages accruing after the commencement of the suit. Morgan v. Kendall, 124 Ind. 454, 9 L.E.A. 445, 24 N. E. 143; Kelley v. Kelley, 8 Ind. App. 606, 34 N. E. 1009; Keddin v. Gates, 52 Iowa, 210, 2 N. W. 1079.
Mental pain is the natural and inevitable result of personal injuries. Damages for such pain may be recovered, though there is no allegation of damages based thereon in the declaration. Gronan v. Kukkuck, 59 Iowa, 18, 12 N. W. 748; Newell v. Whitcher, 53 Vt. 589, 38 Am. Eep. 703.
A new trial will not be granted on the ground of excessive damages unless it appears that the jury were influenced by passion, prejudice, corruption, or wilful disregard of law, in assessing such damages. Hence a verdict for $8,150.87 held not excessive. Brown v. Evans, 17 Eed. 912; May v. Steele, 9 Pac. 112; Alcorn v. Mitchell, 63 111. 553.
A verdict for $1,250 for an unjustifiable assault and battery on plaintiff by two persons, by whom he was severely beaten, causing severe physical injury, held not excessive. Scott v. Hamilton, 71 111. 85; Wolf v. Trinkle, 103 Ind. 355, 3 N. E. 110.
Where the evidence shows that defendants took plaintiff to a field, where they stripped and severely beat him, and then forced him by threats to leave his home, a verdict of $4,000 damages is not excessive. Morgan v. Kendall, 124 Ind. 454, 9 L.E.A. 445, 24 N. E. 143; Armstrong v. Jackson, 37 La. Ann. 219.
In a case of violent and unprovoked assaults, the court will not grant a new trial on account of excessive damages. Chancellor v. Vaughn, 2 Bay, 416; Birchard v. Booth, 4 Wis. 67.
A verdict of $1,200 for spitting in a woman’s face is not necessarily so excessive as to be set aside. Draper v. Baker, 61 Wis. 450, 50 Am. Eep. 143, 21 N. W. 527.
The amount of damages which may be awarded in an action for assault is so largely in the discretion of the jury that it is in extreme cases only that the court is justified in interfering. Lake Street Elev. R. Co. v. Collins, 118 111. App. 270; Ragsdale v. Exell, 20 Ky. L. Rep. 1567, 49 S. W. 775; Barr v. Post, 56 Neb. 698, 77 N. W. 123.

Opinion:
Bronson, J.
The plaintiff recovered a verdict of $2,500 for indecent assault; the defendant has appealed from the judgment rendered and the order of the trial court denying a new trial. The defendant is a bachelor, fifty-nine years of age, engaged in farming; he hired the plaintiff as his housekeeper; the plaintiff was a married woman with two little children, having left her husband for his failure to support her. The plaintiff was needy and so worked out in an endeavor to support herself and her two little children. The agreed compensation for this work was $5 per week. She remained in the employ of the defendant about two weeks. There is evidence in the record that the defendant, at the beginning of the employment, attempted to take indecent liberties with the plaintiff; that his attempts in this direction continued at intermittent periods, finally culminating in a bolder attempt to have sexual intercourse with the plaintiff. All of these attempts the plaintiff resisted. She was compelled to, and did, leave his employ. The main contention of the defendant is that the damages awarded are so excessive as to show the influence of passion and prejudice of the jury. The trial court, in a memorandum opinion denying a new trial, comments upon the record testimony, observing particularly the ladylike demeanor of the plaintiff and the testimony which discloses her effort as a good, virtuous woman to perform hard work in order to maintain herself and her two little children, and, in contrast, the acts of the defendant and the testimony in the record to the effect that he claimed such privileges with housekeepers that might work for him. We agree that the trial court did not err in denying a new trial. The fact that the plaintiff, shamed and humiliated, wept while on the stand as a witness, does not warrant the conclusion of this court that the jury were influenced thereby through passion or prejudice. The question of damages was properly a question of fact for the jury. It was eminently the duty of this defendant to protect the plaintiff as a woman and as a mother in every manner. The assault, as found by the jury, was aggravated, and severely deserves condemnation in law. We find no error in the record. The judgment is affirmed, with costs to the respondent.
Christianson, Ch. J., and Grace, and Birdzell, LL, concur.