Court Opinion

ID: 9826149
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 15:26:13.139132+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:53.318113
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Woods.
I concur in the result only, entertaining the opinion that, standing by itself, there was error in the charge that there could be no' recovery for punitive damages without proof of “wilful'ness, wantonness, recklessness and utter disregard of the rights of the other person.” Wilfulness, wantonness and recklessness are not the equivalents of each other, and the presence of any one of them is a sufficient basis for punitive damages. But the Circuit Judge had previously so explicitly instructed the jury to that effect, that the use of and instead of or in this connection must have appeared to the jury to- be' a mere inadvertence. Besides, there was no finding of even nominal damages, and hence it seems clear an erroneous instruction as to' punitive damages could not have, been prejudicial.