Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

165 Wis. 417

Barnard v. Cohen

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided April 24, 1917

Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1917-04-24

Ray Stevens, Circuit Judge. Action for libel. The case was submitted to the jury under proper instructions and the jury returned the following verdict: “We, the jury, duly impaneled to try the issues in the above entitled action, find for the plaintiff, James Barnard* and assess his damages as follows: “Compensatory damages, -. “Punitory damages, $300.” Thereupon plaintiff moved (1) for judgment in his favor; (2) that the verdict be amended by inserting the words “six cents”…

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“In an action for libel, can there be a recovery of punitory damages if only nominal compensatory damages are found?”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 209 Wis. 2d 605 - Jacque v. Steenberg Homes, Inc.

Relies on Lampert v. Judge & Dolph Drug Co. · Meidel v. Anthis · Bass v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1917-04-24

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently May 1997

1 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

20191719201930194019501960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Rosenberry, J.

¶1There was a demurrer to the complaint which was overruled. The defendant assigns this as error, but in the view we take of the case that question is immaterial. An erroneous judgment will not be reversed where recovery is for no more than a nominal amount. Riess v. Delles, 45 Wis. 662.

¶2The principal question presented is: In an action for libel, can there be a recovery of punitory damages if only nominal compensatory damages are found?

¶3Upon this question there is a conflict in the authorities. In the following cases it is held there may be such recovery: McConathy v. Deck, 34 Colo. 461, 83 Pac. 135; Lamport v. Judge & Dolph D. Co. 238 Mo. 409, 141 S. W. 1095. The following cases hold that there may not be such a recovery: First Nat. Bank v. Kansas G. Co. 60 Kan. 30, 55 Pac. 277; Kuhn v. C., M. & St. P. R. Co. 74 Iowa, 137, 37 N. W. 116; Meidel v. Anthis, 71 Ill. 241. This court is committed to the doctrine that punitory damages cannot be recovered in an action where the compensatory damages are merely nominal. We think this rule is based not only upon authority but upon the better reason. Barber v. Kilbourn, 16 Wis. 485; Maxwell v. Kennedy, 50 Wis. 645, 7 N. W. 657. See, also, Bass v. C. & N. W. R. Co. 42 Wis. 654, 672.

¶4By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.

/165/wis/417 · .json · Public domain