|
FAX N0_ : 7??73-1742
<br />Jun. 18 200 J 8*4PM P 1 -
<br />--Page 3 of 6
<br />:e fxtxtres that wore rexnc>ve;d From it, z r>d that the court should not have allowed a judgrlleizt T'41n11irig t0
<br />ie pla.i..."tifY far damages which covered the carnplete i.nterest iti tlzc property dLta?tagod. This objectiorz,
<br />Wised. rv-- ther irs the plea.d.ing rlor at the triad, is answered Y>y clur ]rioldine, it-). --v- -rL-xrxXIcr, 32
<br />78, at rages 289, 290, 75F'. 916, 920, where we said.: "The rule in this jurisdicticaix is tl-izt in am. ttcstion to
<br />:cover. x-eaxl property one tenLttZt fix COI11Ill.On nzay recover pc>s::etisicjxt of the cntire tract ; s against z.11
<br />--.rsoi-is except his co-tr:nants. Wcese: v. 13arker, 7 Cole-- 178, 2 P. 919." The right tc> Stxc For da.ma.ge-s, as
<br />-ell as -fosr pc>sscssio.n, by a teizant in con-.mc3-1-1 Wotlld seerux tc-3 be: propcr. 38 C:yc. 1 1. 34, note 77.
<br />Points 1, 5, 6, 7, R arkd 1 1 deal with the questi.cm c>-f ciarrlagcs_ It is Au...-g4d thLit the: cc •turt a.ssesseci
<br />arnages for ili.ccinsis;texzt causes Of-*rtctiC>i1, namely: trespass acid conversiaxi- We aoc mo- itleo.tlsist-rncy.
<br />he evidence sLtpportr d th.e ra1 laga3tic>rIS of the cc?misla?int, vvhielz stated th.txt de-f=eizdalmts had rcrnoved flon-l
<br />iad.nti.rf's promises grad cc>Iivericd to their C:)wn use ritrnlcrous iteln.s elf persc.>na?l pre->l?crty; ca.lso that
<br />cfe.nd.ants eraere c4 Ltpon the close c>f plaintiff a.rid Dither removed or darrvuged va3ric7Lxs fixtures t>.t-tac:hecl
<br />> the real csteto_ They blew up Et Corliss steam" ei2gizze and Lt hcwist, clai-"agod a coizipressor axid, at a
<br />-sult Of the explosions, the bLtildirags 11ou.silag than t?Iacllinci-y were da.rriaged.
<br />1t is contended that tYlc daan.Lxge awLardcd wore excessive. 1':f" this contcntioli refErs to the
<br />alTip4--l,.sftlory darrlagcs, we Lire c7i' the opinion that the ovideilcc supports the a1.lcgLtfiic.>izs c>1- the: calnpl.aint
<br />nd the_ju.dglir.ent c>Cthe court its tC7 1?c>th counts. Pla.i,.zti.ff• te.;tifiod that the va-luc to him 6f*tho 11rc3pctty
<br />onvertcd crr destroyed was $37,c-420, said the to.sti•rnony of other wit»e5saes; in rc;gard to values a.imply
<br />apparts the co?ctrt's findings. Withc>Lit referring tc? the rvL1rt1cra1xs items of ot.l-Icr, prc.>pcrty, it may be noted
<br />Iat on.e witness tcstitied that t1-1e va;ltiic of the 2,800 f'caot car traelc in the tunlzel, pl'cxs tl-lo cost cdf laying it,
<br />,-as $4,800, sand tliat the cost c-)-.f rrnc-rc labor of instul.liizg the airline was $3,960.
<br />».. » .._ , _ ....................._.» .__.._......» .....w ..,_..................... ......... ..---- Page 230 , ......................................................................»
<br /> .,..............,...w............
<br />We dcl. nc-wt holiove that th.e jLxclgirlcnt for exemplary clamr:xges earn he considered cxcessivc_ In Starkey
<br />Da:rncroti, 92 Cc?lc>. 420, 21 P.2cl 1 1 '1 2, 1 1 13, 22 7?.2cl 640, we hold tli a.t orclk arily oxcrrlplaxy claxnages
<br />shx u.ld hear sc?nzc relation to the coizzpctzsatory dtamagc:s awa.rcled and th.e evil intorit or watltonta.ess
<br />xhibited tc)wLtrd tlzc partictxl.vLr 1-»rsorl irijur.ed." Tl?erc, plaintiff sued f'c>z- exey?iplai-y datl°Ia.ges irl tho
<br />roportion. >rfwo-fifths of tlte cc>rnpcnsntory danaagc:s, but the jxu-y axwarde ti c7ccrizplary daxrLtgcs in cxtl
<br />tti-IOUnt twenty tunes the compensaU-3ry c),f $100 awftrclod, and we held thtxt uncles- the: C'1rcL1I21StFia1C ?ti the
<br />xexx>.pl.ary should not e.x4.e;ed tl>_c actvmll damap-es.
<br />Points 7 aazd 8 deal with the apprc)priatcncss of cxenrplavy darrlagcs, counsel Vor defendants clta.imiyig
<br />a.) Tbat tlzesrc bcing neither fraud nor m.Lxlicc, involved ixa the case:, cxcmphxry dLUnaiges; should. not hLtvti
<br />Eetl a-vvu-rl4--c1 orI either cause cif action, and (b) cspeciFa.ll.y itnclor the circutxista.IxCSc--s c>1'this particx--&1zvr case
<br />z view of the -tact that the cc7tirt, in a, prel.in•>inary find.ilig, sat"ted that: `Fheir a.ctic>ns, as shown by the
<br />vidcrncc, cox vince: the Court that these pt--oplc thought thoy tic>taght something zAric1 that they had a right
<br />D get it regardless o:f.' cc?nscquenc:es, but withoLtt any partir-vdax ill f &olitig, or bias c]r rnalicc towarcl
<br />duintiff.. "
<br />.GC tsnsel. L11sc7 quote th.e f(?llowiilf words of the Lria1 court: "Tli.e ec7ttrt does i1cvt belic?crc; t11e t +tii11oi1y
<br />n this case sh..ow-: any 11Z%tx-ed c>r tllat the deFc iida..nt4 hLLd any particulLLr grudge or ill-115clivxe- a.ga.itzst the
<br />.latiiztiff or reiciic ed in what they were doing."
<br />Both the flbresgoiiZg quc>tattions arc-- taken frown tha3t part c>-f. a n?oirsorataduiia. ;;x.5 t:c> l-' itldingrs Farad
<br />Ltdgt'ncnt which preceded tl•Ic ZtctuLtl Fiiz3-k44zuLicl TLLdgment. Tbcy r?1Llt6ci •tU Cl?c czwraxd c>f- a body
<br />:XCC?xtion "Sainst defendaxxts urndrr sectic-pi74, C17A1>t?r 93, vallin•zo 3, '35 C"•.S.A., which pvcav'idcs thatt
<br />:xecLxtic»y a.p;a.irlst the body mLty issue whe:iz th.c action is .foLinciocl in tort Lind vvllcrc the defcriclnnt is
<br />rttP://www.la.writcr.net/cgi-bili/texis/web/cLtSCiaw/ + _orihxWre131i?vvBme9j fSeoPl3wwwxF... 7/1 _S/:200,4
|