Kuvent v. Altwerger

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Kuvent v. Altwerger

126 A. 283, 124 Me. 434, 1924 Me. LEXIS 88

DecidedOctober 14, 1924

StatusPublished

This text of 126 A. 283 (Kuvent v. Altwerger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kuvent v. Altwerger, 126 A. 283, 124 Me. 434, 1924 Me. LEXIS 88 (Me. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

These actions are before the Law Court upon general motions for new trials filed by defendants. Upon the brief their counsel “frankly concede that .... this Court will not now, on review, say .... that a new trial on the merits should be ordered, but contend that the damages awarded were manifestly excessive and unwarranted, even though the element of punitive damages was considered.”

The record discloses, however, ample evidence,to warrant the jury in finding that the assaults were unprovoked, wilful, and malicious. The weight to be given to the evidence is quite as much for the consideration of the jury upon the question of damages as upon the question of liability; and the amount of punitive damages to be awarded must rest in the sound, cool judgment of the jury, under proper instructions, which we must assume were given.

The evidence clearly preponderates in favor of the plaintiff; no reason is shown which will justify the court in interfering with the verdicts. In each action the entry will be Motion overruled.

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

These actions are before the Law Court upon general motions for new trials filed by defendants. Upon the brief their counsel “frankly concede that .... this Court will not now, on review, say .... that a new trial on the merits should be ordered, but contend that the damages awarded were manifestly excessive and unwarranted, even though the element of punitive damages was considered.”

The record discloses, however, ample evidence,to warrant the jury in finding that the assaults were unprovoked, wilful, and malicious. The weight to be given to the evidence is quite as much for the consideration of the jury upon the question of damages as upon the question of liability; and the amount of punitive damages to be awarded must rest in the sound, cool judgment of the jury, under proper instructions, which we must assume were given.

The evidence clearly preponderates in favor of the plaintiff; no reason is shown which will justify the court in interfering with the verdicts. In each action the entry will be Motion overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A. 283, 124 Me. 434, 1924 Me. LEXIS 88, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kuvent-v-altwerger-me-1924.