Pickett v. Crook

20 Wis. 358
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1866
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 20 Wis. 358 (Pickett v. Crook) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pickett v. Crook, 20 Wis. 358 (Wis. 1866).

Opinion

Dixon, C. J.

Though the damages do not appear to be ex-ceesive, nor the verdict unjust, yet as the jury acted under an erroneous instruction, the influence of which cannot now be determined, the judgment must be reversed and a new trial awarded. It was error to charge the jury “that they were at liberty to find exemplary damages; that this is one of those cases in which they can be allowed.” This instruction was too broad and unqualified. The conditions under which the jury were authorized to give exemplary damages were wholly undefined ; and the amount of such damages left to a vague sense of propriety on their part. Exemplary damages in cases of this nature can only proceed from gross and criminal negligence — such negligence as evinces on the part of the defendant a wanton disregard of the safety of others, and which in law is equivalent to malice. In such cases the jury may give exemplary damages) by way of punishment, proportioned to the degree of negligence or wantonness shown. The jury should [360]*360have been instructed that, if they found these conditions, of which, the evidence seems very slight, then they were at liberty to give such exemplary damages as, under all the circumstances, would be just. As the instruction is, the question of gross negligence or wanton misconduct on the -part of the defendant was assumed by the court, and not left to the consideration of the jury at all.

By the Court.■ — -The judgment is reversed, and a new trial awarded.

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

Related

Smith v. Wade
461 U.S. 30 (Supreme Court, 1983)
Rapid Sewing Center, Inc. v. Sanders
112 N.W.2d 233 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1961)
McCurdy v. Hughes
248 N.W. 512 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1933)
Meshane v. Second Street Co.
222 N.W. 320 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1928)
Gamble v. Keyes
166 N.W. 134 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1917)
Baxter v. Campbell
97 N.W. 386 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1903)
Haberman v. Gasser
80 N.W. 105 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1899)
Pegram v. Stortz
6 S.E. 485 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1888)
Meibus v. Dodge
38 Wis. 300 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1875)
Taylor v. Grand Trunk Railway Co.
48 N.H. 304 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1869)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 Wis. 358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pickett-v-crook-wis-1866.