Court Opinion

ID: 9864785
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:11:30.714838+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:31:51.628882
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Butler,
concurring.
I concur in tbe result. Tbe statute permits tbe award of only reasonable exemplary damages. C. L. §6307. In view of tbe evidence, tbe amount of exemplary damages is unreasonable and indicates that tbe jury arrived at tbe amount through passion or prejudice.
With tbe statement in tbe majority opinion that exemplary damages in this case should not exceed tbe actual damages, I am unable to agree. Tbe two kinds of damages are based upon wholly different considerations. Actual damages are to compensate tbe plaintiff for tbe injury sustained.' Exemplary damages, sometimes called punitive, or vindictive, damages, or smart money, are considered as being in tbe nature of punishment and as a warning to deter tbe defendant and others from committing like offenses in the future. 8 R. C. L., p. 581. And in fixing the amount of exemplary damages, tbe jury may take into consideration tbe defendant’s financial condition, since tbe allowance of a given sum may be a less punishment to one man than to another. Id.; McAllister v. McAllister, 72 Colo. 28, 209 Pac. 788; Courvoisier v. Raymond, 23 Colo. 113, 47 Pac. 284. In some cases tbe facts may justify tbe recovery of only a small amount of actual damages, but may show such a degree of fraud, malice or insult, or such a wanton or reckless disregard of tbe plaintiff’s rights and feelings as to call for exemplary damages in a very substantial amount. In McConathy v. Deck, 34 Colo. 461, 83 Pac. 135, where there was some evidence of actual damages, but none were found by tbe trial court, we sustained a judgment for exemplary damages in tbe sum of $500'. In tbe opinion we cited with approval Favorite v. Cottrill, 62 Mo. App. 119, *425in which a judgment for $1 compensatory damages and $2,499 exemplary damages was sustained.
In the present ease the amount awarded as actual damages, referred to in the principal opinion as a “rather trivial sum,” should not be used as a yardstick with which to measure the amount recoverable as exemplary damages. The statement in the majority opinion may be understood by the trial court as an intimation that it should be so used at the next trial. If this is what is intended hy the statement, it does not agree with my idea of the law; if that is not the intention, the language, it seems to me, is unfortunate.
Mr. Justice Bouck concurs in the views herein expressed.