Boetchier v. Staples

27 Minn. 308
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided November 9, 1880·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Gilfillan, C. J.

It is fully settled by the decisions of this court that in actions for torts, where there has been fraud, malice or oppression on the part of the defendant, the jury may allow what are denominated exemplary or punitive damages — that is, damages beyond the mere pecuniary loss or injury to the plaintiff, and intended as in some measure a punishment upon the defendant for the wrong done, and as an example to deter others from similar acts. Lynd v. Picket, 7 Minn. 128, (184;) Fox v. Stevens, 13 Minn. 272; Seeman v. Feeney 19 Minn. 79; McCarthy v. Niskern, 22 Minn. 90.

The rule, according to the great mass of authorities, applies as well where the wrongful acts of the defendant bring him within the law for punishing crimes, as where they are less aggravated in their character. The rule is so well estab[309] lislied that, whatever may be the abstract reasons for or against it, it must be adhered to till changed by the legislature.

Order affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Boetchier v. Staples, 27 Minn. 308 (Mich. 1880).

27 Minn. 308 (Boetchier v. Staples) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lewis v. Minneapolis Investment Co.
190 N.W. 70 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1922)
Muenkel v. Muenkel
173 N.W. 184 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1919)
Warren v. Coharie Lumber Co.
69 S.E. 685 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1910)
State v. Shevlin-Carpenter Co.
108 N.W. 935 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1906)
Carli v. Union Depot, Street Railway & Transfer Co.
20 N.W. 89 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1884)
Smith v. Bagwell
19 Fla. 117 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1882)