Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

21 Ind. 164

Cox v. Vanderkleed

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided November 15, 1863

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1863-11-15

<p>Damages. — In action for civil damages for an assault and battery, • the jury, in assessing the damages, may consider the injury inflicted on the plaintiff by the blow given by the defendant, the expense incurred, loss of time, of hearing, of his peace of mind and individual happiness occasioned by the injury received.</p>

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“"The instruction complained of is as follows: `In assessing damages you may consider the injuries inflicted on the plaintiff by the blow given by the defendant, the expenses incurred, loss of time and hearing, also his peace of mind and individual happiness occasioned by the injury received.' This instruction is sustained by the case of Taber v. Hutson, 5 Ind. 322 , and it seems to us to be correct in principle."”

quoted by 1 later decision, including New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad v. Henderson

Relies on Taber v. Hutson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1863-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently November 1976

1 federal appellate · 15 state decisions

40186318701880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

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 →

Worden, J.

¶1This was an action by the appellee against the appellant for assault and battery. Trial, verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.

¶2The case is before us on the evidence, and an instruction to the jury. We can not disturb the verdict on the evidence, nor do the damages clearly appear to have been excessive. The instruction complained of is as follows: “ In assessing damages you may consider the injuries inflicted on the plaintiff by the blow given by the defendant, the'expenses incurred, loss of time and hearing, also his peace of mind and individual happiness occasioned by the injury received.” This instruction is sustained by the case of Taber v. Hutson, 5 Ind. 322, and it seems to us to be correct in principle. Nor can we say that it was not applicable and pertinent to the evidence.

D. Mace and W. C. Wilson, for the appellant.H. W. Chase and J. A. Wilstach, for the appellee.

¶3Per Curiam. — The judgment below is affirmed, with costs and 1 per cent. damages.

/21/ind/164 · .json · Public domain