Court Opinion

ID: 9550799
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:42:36.768538+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:22:28.328673
License: Public Domain

HOWARD, Judge
(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
I concur in all respects with the majority opinion except as to the affirmance of the award of punitive damages.
The facts as set forth by the majority are somewhat misconstrued and not fully stated.
As far as the drainage ditch is concerned the evidence is uncontradicted and undisputed that the construction of the ditch was pursuant to instructions by the City of Tucson. Mr. Douglas Massingill, the city engineer, testified that the city required Mr. Geyer to construct the ditch, so that the water flowing across his property left the property at the lowest point. Mr. Geyer hired an engineer who determined the lowest spot on the north border of Geyer’s property. The ditch was so constructed as to release the water at that point. The city engineer then approved the location of the ditch. Neither the city engineer nor Geyer’s engineer were of the opinion that the new ditch would cause an increased water problem to the other property. Obviously they were wrong.
The evidence discloses that Geyer was required by the City to dedicate a bridle path across the property as part of the rezoning. He did so along the course of the ditch and the Otts knew that it was a drainage ditch and not merely a bridle path. What conduct do we have then, as far as the ditch is concerned, which would *170support punitive damages ? Geyer did what he was told to do by the City of Tucson. He acted upon the advice and requirements of the City and his own engineer.
Punitive damages should not be allowed unless there is a showing of wanton or reckless acts or spite or ill will. State Farm Mutual Ins. Co. v. St. Joseph’s Hospital, 107 Ariz. 498, 489 P.2d 837 (1971). To constitute “wantonness” authorizing exemplary damages, the acts complained of must show not simply lack of due care, but that the actor must have realized the imminence of injury to others from his acts and refrained from taking steps to prevent the injury because indifferent to whether or not it occurred. Allman v. Bird, 186 Kan. 802, 353 P.2d 216 (1960).
The evidence concerning the construction of the drainage ditch does not support an award for punitive damages.
Nor do I believe that the bulldozing of the fence supports an award of punitive damages. Apparently the majority considers this act as an attempt to destroy evidence. I do not believe the evidence can admit of any such conclusion. The majority opinion fails to state that Mrs. Ott testified that Mr. Geyer asked her permission to tear down the old fence and replace it with a new chain-link fence. I find it rather strange that a man who is, according to the majority, acting wantonly, recklessly and out of spite and ill-will would first ask permission to remove the fence. I also find it difficult to believe that he was attempting to destroy evidence when the facts show that the corner posts of the fence were left in place, albeit bent. Mr. Geyer was never given the opportunity to place the fence back in the old position because suit was filed right after he proposed to split the difference. Furthermore, the fence was on his land according to his deed and the survey. I am unable to find any evidence whatsoever in the record to support an award of punitive damages.