Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Reports of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands

  Download original PDF

Walker v Kinney [1969] TTLawRp 70; 5 TTR 149 (28 April 1969)

5 TTR 149

MOSES S. WALKER,
Plaintiff

v.

ROBERT KINNEY,
Defendant

Civil Action No. 285

Trial Division of the High Court
Mariana Islands District

April 28, 1969

Appellate Court Opinion - 5 TTR 87

Action for damages for injuries resulting from an assault. The Trial Division of the High Court, R. K. Shoecraft, Chief Justice, held that in order to recover punitive damages the plaintiff would have to show compensatory damages and in the absence of such showing no punitive damages would be allowed and also where no compensatory damages were shown court would award plaintiff only nominal damages.

1. Civil Procedure - Demand for Trial

The effect of defendant's demand for trial was to put in issue every allegation of the plaintiff.

2. Torts - Damages - Punitive Damages

Punitive damages depend upon the existence of compensatory damages.

3. Assault - Generally

The use of insulting and abusive words will not, standing alone, justify an assault.

4. Torts - Damages - Punitive Damages

Unless it is clearly shown that the defendant acted maliciously and with the intent to injure the plaintiff, the court may not award punitive damages.

5. Torts - Damages - Punitive Damages

Punitive damages are usually an amount in excess of proven compensatory damages, and punitive damages are awarded merely as punishment to· prevent the defendant and others from committing the same offense or a like offense.

6. Assault - Malice

The court would not presume the existence of malice in the face of direct testimony that immediately following incident in question the defendant expressed regret for his actions and offered to apologize to the plaintiff.

SHOECRAFT, Chief Justice

This action was brought by a United States citizen against another United States citizen, both of whom are residents of Saipan and both of whom are employed as teachers at Hopwood High School. The plaintiff claimed that on February 28, 1969, he was assaulted without provocation by the defendant in a room at the Hopwood High School. The plaintiff further claimed that, as a result of that assault, he was injured and that those injuries included injuries to his ear, neck, head and extremities, injuries to his central and peripheral nervous system, severe shock, and other injuries not yet diagnosed, all of which are either permanent or continuing in their nature. The plaintiff further claimed that as a result of those injuries he was forced to seek medical attention and that in the future he will be compelled to seek further medical attention. The plaintiff also claimed that his professional status has been impaired as a result of this alleged assault, and that his earning capacity and working ability are also impaired.