White v. Benkowski

NAME:		White (π) v. Benkowski (Δ),37 Wis.2d 285, 155 N.W.2d 74 (1967) [J. Wilkie]
P/S:		π sued the Δ’s for breach of K, seeking compensatory and punitive damages. The jury found the Δ has shut off the water maliciously in order to harass the π. It awarded the π compensatory damages of $10 and punitive damages of $2000. On motions after the verdict, the award was reduced to $1 in compensatory damages and no punitive damages. The Whites appealed.
F:		π bought a house that lacked its own water supply but was connected to a well on the adjacent property of the Δ. π and Δ entered into a contract in which the Δ promised to supply water to the π for 10 years in return for the payment of $3 a month and half the costs of any future repairs. The relationship between the two deteriorated and on nine separate occasions the Δ shut off the water supply to the π claiming that this was done to either allow accumulated sand to settle or to remind the π that their water use was excessive.
I:	I1: I2:	Was the trial court correct in reducing the award of compensatory damages from $10 to $1? Are punitive damage available in actions for breach of contract?
H:	H1: H2:	NO. Reversed by reinstating the jury verdict relating to compensatory damages. SOMETIMES, but in the instant case, NO. Affirmed trial judge’s elimination of punitive damages.
Rule:	R1: R2:	1. In an action for a breach of K the π is entitled to such damages as shall have been sustained by him which resulted naturally and directly from the breach if you find that the Δ’s did in fact breach the K. Such damages include pecuniary loss and inconvenience suffered as a natural result of the breach. 2. Nominal damages is meant to be a trivial sum of money 1. Punitive damages are given “…on the basis of punishment to the injured party b/c he has been injured, … to punish the wrongdoer for his malice and to deter other from like conduct,” – Malco, Inc. v. Midwest Aluminum Sales
R:	R1: R2:	1. The rationale of the court indicates that it disregarded or overlooked π testimony of inconvenience. There was some injury. The π’s are not required to ascertain their damages w/ mathematical precision, but rather the trier of fact must set damages at a reasonable amount. 2. The jury finding of $10 in actual damages, though small, takes it out of the mere nominal status 1. No Wisconsin case in which breach of K (other than breach of a promise to marry) has led to the award of punitive damages. 2. Persuasive authority from other jurisdictions supports the proposition that punitive damages are not available in breach of K actions. 3. A breach of K may be a tort when the K creates the relation out of which grows the duty to use care in the performance of a responsibility prescribed by the contract. However, no tort was pleaded or proved.