Opinion ID: 1935139
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Health Department Orders.

Text: The exclusion of this evidence would be erroneous if the out of pocket rule of damages has applied to the present case. The orders are clearly relevant to the value of the trailer court as given up by the Jensens. Since we hold that the secret profit restitutionary measure of damages is applicable in this case, the evidence was properly excluded. The trial court correctly held that it was relevant only to the counterclaim. Defendants also claim that the evidence was relevant to the issue of punitive damages. In support of that contention they cite Clement v. Brown, 57 Minn. 314, 59 N.W. 198 (1894). In Clement, this court refused to allow a woman who had been engaged in an adulterous relationship to recover any more than compensatory damages for breach of promise to marry. The case may be explained in part by the court's reluctance to reward behavior which it considered immoral. Punitive damages are usually considered to be a deterrent to particularly egregious conduct, but some courts consider the award as compensation for the plaintiff's injured feelings or as a reward under a private attorney general theory. Dobbs, Remedies, § 3.9. Although the reward theory might conceivably support defendants' contention here, later Minnesota cases do not use that rationale. Benson Co-op. Creamery Assn. v. First District Assn., 276 Minn. 520, 151 N.W.2d 422 (1967), clearly indicates a deterrence rationale.