holding that, to recover for a false arrest, the plaintiff must show "that the restraint was unreasonable and such as was not warranted by the circumstances"
How later courts described this case
- holding that, to recover for a false arrest, the plaintiff must show "that the restraint was unreasonable and such as was not warranted by the circumstances"
- stating that punitive damages “are given solely as a punishment where torts are com- mitted with fraud”
- punitive damages appropriate in cases of “fraud, actual malice, or deliberate violence or oppression or when the defendant acts willfully, or with such gross negligence as to indicate a wanton disregard of the rights of others.”
- exemplary damages are given solely as a punishment where torts are committed with fraud; to recover exemplary or punitive damages, the declaration must allege some general facts and circumstances of fraud
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Brown, J.
(concurring). — While concurring generally in the well considered opinion of Mr. Justice Davis, there is one expression which indicates that vindictive damages do not fall within the same class with exemplary or punitive damages. I think our case of Smith v. Bagwell, properly construed, means that exemplary, punitive and vindictive damages are all one class of damages. See also R. C. L. 579, 17. C. J. 968. Broadly speaking, in cases of this kind, there are only two classes of recoverable damages, compensatory and exemplary. Compensatory damages are frequently referred to. as “actual” damages, 8 R. C. L. 427, and mental suffering caused by the wrongful act of the'defendant is one of the elements of compensatory damages. Smith v. Bagwell,
supra;
8 R. C. L. 521.