Court Opinion

ID: 9553807
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:35:25.701446+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:32:17.183308
License: Public Domain

DONALDSON, Justice
(concurring and dissenting).
I concur in that portion of the opinion affirming judgment in favor of respondent. However, because I believe that the case falls within the third category, as established in Cox v. Stolworthy, 94 Idaho 683, 496 P.2d 682 (1972), rather than the second, I respectfully dissent from that portion of the opinion affirming the award of punitive damages. An award of $5,000.-00 punitive damages appears to me to be excessive under the facts of this case and it should be reduced to $2,000.00.
In Cox v. Stolworthy, supra, this Court created three categories of cases to provide guidance in determining what amount of punitive damages are proper in a given case. Into the first two categories, in which substantial awards are proper, fall those cases involving either deceptive business practices operated for a profit, often at the expense of the public, or malicious conduct endangering the physical well-being of others. In both, the need to prevent recurrence of the conduct in the future is obvious. The third category, and *792the one into which this case appears to me to fall, involves those cases described in Cox v. Stolworthy, supra, as follows:
“These cases typically involve non-violent but nevertheless serious disputes between two parties. Often the dispute centers on an interest in real or personal property or an interference with a business operation. Here the action concerned an act of- trespass to the plaintiffs’ real property but no lives were endangered and there was no indication the defendant made a practice of acting in this fashion.” 94 Idaho at 691, 496 P.2d at 690.
The case before the Court involves a dispute between two parties over possession of property. The actions of the appellant did not endanger the life of respondent. Nothing in the record indicates that the appellant was acting with a crass profit motive nor does it appear that there is any danger that appellant will repeat his conduct in the future. Thus, there is no justification for awarding damages in excess of the amount required to compensate respondent for the inconvenience and hardship caused by the appellant and the expense of bringing the action. Thus, the following language from Cox v. Stolworthy, supra, is applicable:
“There is nothing in the record to reflect any future intent by the defendant to continue the activities, as was in Village of Peck v. Denison, nor any crass profit making scheme as present in Boise Dodge, Inc. v. Clark. Thus the necessity for the heavy deterrent and punishment aspect of those two cases is absent here.” 94 Idaho at 688, 689, 496 P.2d at 687.
Because punitive damages are not favored in the law and should be awarded only with caution, Lewiston Pistol Club, Inc. v. Imthurn, 94 Idaho 264, 486 P.2d 275 (1971), the awarding of substantial punitive damages should be limited to exceptional cases such as those where the need to protect the public from fraudulent schemes or life endangering acts is present. See Boise Dodge, Inc. v. Clark, 92 Idaho 902, 453 P.2d 551 (1969); Village of Peck v. Denison, 92 Idaho 747, 450 P.2d 310 (1969). Where, as here, the dispute centers around the property rights of two individuals, punitive damages should be limited to those expenses which are not compensated by the jury’s award of compensatory damages. Cox v. Stolworthy, supra. Therefore, I would reduce the amount of punitive damages awarded in this case to $2,000.00.