Opinion ID: 2266700
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the damage claim against laurence smith

Text: Another phase of this appeal that can be disposed of briefly is the question of damages for Smith's assault on Green. Judge Mathias instructed the jury that they could return nominal and punitive damages against Smith for pointing the gun at Mr. Green, but the judge indicated that he could recall no proof of actual damages caused by that act. The relevant portion of his instruction to the jury is as follows: The law says that every injury to the rights of another imports damages. So even though you may find there was no actual damage proven by Mr. Green that resulted from the pistol being pointed at him, if you believe that Mr. Smith was wrong in what he did and that he should be liable to Mr. Green, you may award nominal damages of one cent, and then you may also consider whether or not to award punitive damages. Mr. Green now complains that this in effect was an instruction which precluded the jury from considering actual damages for the assault with the pistol. Assuming that this accurately portrays the inference the jury could have drawn from Judge Mathias' instruction, we detect no error. An assault is one of those technical invasions of a person's bodily integrity which entitles him at least to nominal damages. He is not entitled to an additional compensatory award unless he can show actual damages from either demonstrable bodily injury or some form of subjective injury such as mental anguish, fright, humiliation, or pain and suffering. Bugg v. Brown, 251 Md. 99, 103-06, 246 A.2d 235 (1968); Mason v. Wrightson, 205 Md. 481, 488-89, 109 A.2d 128 (1954); Prosser, Law of Torts, § 9 at 33-35 (1964). See also Peroti v. Williams, 258 Md. 663, 267 A.2d 114 (1970). The plaintiffs have shown us no authority which suggests that actual damages, however intangible, can be awarded without some proof, suggestion, inference or basis in fact indicating more than a technical violation of the plaintiffs' rights. After a careful review of the testimony in this case we must concur with the trial judge that not only was there a complete absence of evidence showing actual damages resulting from Smith's assault, but there was also affirmative evidence to the contrary. It was Mr. Green himself who described his own state of mind. He testified that when Smith pointed the gun at him: I never let loose. I said it would be the last person he ever killed. Moreover, during cross-examination Green testified I wasn't scared of the gun then. He could of killed me and it still wouldn't have scared me. Finding no error in these instructions on damages we must affirm this aspect of the judgment as to Smith.