Opinion ID: 1646498
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Excessiveness of exemplary damages.

Text: In regard to the alleged excessiveness of the award of exemplary damages we note that trial court instructed jury that there was no exact rule for computing the amount of exemplary damages and You are not obliged to award any exemplary damages and you are the sole judges as to whether or not such damages shall be awarded and the amount thereof  . In no event may you allow the Plaintiff Klara Northrup as exemplary damages more than $15,000, the sum prayed for in her petition   . Defendants took no exception to the instruction, nor did they request any supplemental instruction. Exemplary damages are in no way intended to be compensatory. There is no set mathematical ratio between actual and exemplary damages. Syester v. Banta, supra. Exemplary damages are intended to punish the defendant and deter others from similar wrongdoing. Claude v. Weaver Construction Company, supra; Syester v. Banta, supra. To be effective in this purpose the exemplary damages awarded must be relatively large. Although precedents are of little value in determining the excessiveness of awards, we note that in Syester v. Banta, supra, a jury verdict for $40,000 punitive damages and $14,300 actual damages was sustained. In Union Mill Co. v. Prenzler, 100 Iowa 540, 69 N.W. 876 (1897) the court sustained an award of $777.06 compensatory damages and $5000 exemplary damages. In the instant case the jury awarded $15,000 exemplary damages and $5000 actual damages on the emotional-harm claim. The $15,000 does not shock our conscience, nor do we believe it to be excessive in light of the despicable conduct of defendants. The amount of exemplary damages is peculiarly within jury's discretion. Boyle v. Bornholtz, 224 Iowa 90, 275 N.W. 479 (1937). No remittitur is permitted in this state if punitive damages awarded are found to be excessive. Claude v. Weaver Construction Company, supra. As these damages allowed here were not excessive, trial court did not err in refusing to set aside the award of exemplary damages. See Boise Dodge, Inc. v. Clark, 92 Idaho 902, 453 P. 2d 551 (1969). X. We have carefully examined the record and certified exhibits, and considered all of defendants' arguments and brief points whether discussed above or not. We find no error and consequently the judgment below is affirmed. Affirmed.