Ham v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.

Hoke, J. As now advised, we discover no error in this case as to the rule by which the question of liability has been determined, nor as to the award of compensatory damages, Harrison v. R. R., ante, 86; Clark v. Bland, 181 N. C., 110, but we are of opinion that reversible error appears in the charge of the court on the question of punitive damages. Speaking to this question of punitive damages in the concurring opinion *324 of Ammons v. R. R., 140 N. C., 200, it was said: “Exemplary or punitive damages are not given with a view to compensation, but are under some circumstances awarded in addition to compensation as a punishment to defendant, and as a warning to other wrongdoers. They are not allowed as a matter of course, but only where there are some features of aggravation, as when the wrong is done willfully and maliciously, or under circumstances of rudeness and oppression, or in a manner that evinces a reckless and wanton disregard of plaintiff’s rights.” And in the prior case of Holmes v. R. R., 94 N. C., 318, it was held that punitive damages are not to be allowed “unless there is an element of fraud, malice, gross negligence, insult, or other cause of aggravation in the act which causes the injury.” Both of these statements were cited with approval in the recent case of Cottle v. Johnson, 179 N. C., 430, and in that case, among other things, it was directly held: “Where there is allegation and conflicting evidence that the defendant alienated the affections of the plaintiff’s wife, and also had criminal conversation with her, it is error for the trial judge to charge the jury that they may award punitive damages in their discretion without instructing them upon the law relating to the principles upon which punitive damages may only be awarded.” The charge of his Honor in the principle case comes directly within the condemnation of this ruling. For he tells the jury that in addition to compensatory damages they may add “such an amount of punitive damages.as would be a reasonable punishment to .the defendant for its wrongful acts,” without giving any further statement of the principles that should guide them to a correct and proper determination of such a question. For this error we are of opinion that there must be a new trial of the cause, and it is so ordered. New trial.