Court Opinion

ID: 9772538
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:21:33.189597+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:45.444212
License: Public Domain

TODD, Presiding Judge,
concurring.
With reluctance I concur in the principal opinion.
The principal reason for my reluctance is that a gross invasion of privacy is being perpetrated in the name of right, with the ultimate purpose being served for wrong.
Exemplary or vindictive damages, though clearly wrong in theory, are established as a rule in Tennessee. Dougherty v. Shown, 48 Tenn. (1 Heisk.) 302 (1870).
Punitive damages are wrong because they grant to the injured party a windfall to which the injured party has no natural right. If the injured party receives adequate compensatory damages there is no just reason to give him more.
Wrong doing should be punished but not by enriching the victim. Victims of crimes receive no windfall upon conviction of the perpetrator.
When a penalty is assessed for wrong doing, it belongs to the sovereign and should be paid into the public treasury. However, it should be recovered in an action, penal in nature, in which the accused has the benefit of all rights of the accused, including the presumption of innocence and the requirements of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is contrary to our *141system of justice to punish particular wrongdoers upon mere preponderance of evidence.
Tennessee courts have permitted the continuance of a practice which admittedly is wrong, and now feel compelled to compound the wrong by a further imposition.
Exemplary damages have been recognized as wrong for nearly 100 years, since 1886. Now is the time to right the wrong.