Court Opinion

ID: 9809283
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:07:02.482091+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:25:47.760066
License: Public Domain

BeowN, J.,
dissenting: The judge submitted these issues:
1. Did the defendant unlawfully cut out plaintiff’s telephone, as alleged in the complaint ? Answer: Yes.
2. If so, what actual damage is the plaintiff entitled to recover therefor ? Answer: $100.
3. If so, what punitive damage is the plaintiff entitled to recover therefor? Answer: $500.
The court charged: “If you should find that the defendant cut out the phone through malice to the plaintiff, or if it was cut out recklessly, wantonly, without any regard to the rights of the plaintiff, it would still be without your discretion whether or not to punish the defendant. You can give damages on the third issue if you are satisfied- it was done recklessly, wantonly, maliciously, or you cannot, if you find it was so done.”
I am of the opinion there is no just ground upon the evidence in this case t<? warrant the imposition of punitive damages. The plaintiff’s own evidence shows there was a bona fide difference between him and defendant’s manager as to whether he had paid his phone rental. Plaintiff admits that his phone charges became due 1 April, and that up to 3 June he had not paid them, although asked for them repeatedly. He claims to have paid them to Murray, defendant’s clerk, on 3 June. The defendant had indulged him for a full month. One 29 June, being dunned again for his dues, he stated to -defendant’s manager, Boyd, that he had paid them in full. Boyd said: “Our books show only $1.50 was paid, and if you will bring your receipt around, we will be glad to fix our books.”
Plaintiff admits that he could not find his receipt.
*340Plaintiff further ’ testifies that on 27 June be and bis wife bad gone to a' hospital to see her father, and on • return home they found the phone cut out. Plaintiff, on 29 June, paid the balance of $3 under protest, and the phone was at once restored. He was without the use of a phone about 36 hours: . A week afterwards his wife found the receipt. Plaintiff further testifies that Murray came to see him and asked to see the receipt, and he declined to let him have it. He further says that at once Boyd, defendant’s manager, came to see him, and offered to settle the matter, and pralled 0ut a roll of bills, but plaintiff declined to negotiate.
There is no evidence here of either malice, wantonness, or a reckless disregard of plaintiff’s just rights. There is evidence of .a bona fide difference as to the payment of plaintiff’s rental. He failed to produce his receipt until some time after the phone had been taken out, and at once the defendant’s manager offered to compensate plaintiff for any damage he may have sustained, but plaintiff refused even to discuss the matter.
I believe in holding public-service corporations to a full performance of' their duty, but they are compelled to use human beings to 'perform their functions for them, and humanity is not infallible.
In this case an honest mistake was made, and $100 actual damage is a very large compensation for the injury suffered, I find nothing in the record which in my opinion warrants the imposition, of “smart* money” upon defendant.