Foote v. Nichols

28 Ill. 486
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedApril 15, 1862
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 28 Ill. 486 (Foote v. Nichols) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Foote v. Nichols, 28 Ill. 486 (Ill. 1862).

Opinion

Catón, C. J.

This was an action for ássault and battery. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and that the injury was committed by him in necessary self-defense. The proof was sufficient to warrant the jury in finding the defendant guilty of the assault, which is shown to have been a severe one. Although the damages were pretty high, we cannot feel justified in disturbing the verdict for that cause.

The complaint of the first two instructions is, that they confine the justification to a defense of the person, whereas the defendant might have committed the assault in the necessary defense of his property, which he had a right to do. The sufficient answer to this is, that no pretense of such a defense is set up in the pleadings, nor indeed, is there anything in the proof to justify such a conclusion. As applied to the issues upon which the jury had to pass, these instructions were correct.

The court instructed the jury, that if they believe, from the evidence, that the defendant assaulted the plaintiff without provocation, and that such assault was an aggravated one, and that the public good, or justice to the plaintiff, or both, demand it, then the law is that they are not confined in their verdict to actual damages proven, but may give exemplary damages not only to compensate the plaintiff, but to punish the defendant for such wanton injury, not exceeding the amount claimed in the declaration; and this is complained of. The instruction was correct. The assault specified in this instruction, to justify punitive or exemplary damages, is an aggravated one, without provocation. In such a case, the jury may go beyond mere compensation to the plaintiff, and admonish the defendant and all others in the same way inclined, that the peace of society is not to be thus violated with impunity.

The judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Freese v. Buoy
576 N.E.2d 1176 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1991)
Hazelwood v. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad
450 N.E.2d 1199 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1983)
Mattyasovszky v. West Towns Bus Co.
330 N.E.2d 509 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1975)
Chicago Consolidated Traction Co. v. Mahoney
82 N.E. 868 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1907)
Robinson v. Superior Rapid Transit Railway Co.
34 L.R.A. 205 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1896)
Pegram v. Stortz
6 S.E. 485 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1888)
Miller v. Kirby
74 Ill. 242 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1874)
Hawk v. Ridgway
33 Ill. 473 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1864)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
28 Ill. 486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foote-v-nichols-ill-1862.