## Facts

- The parties were involved in a prior trespass action tried in an Illinois circuit court.
- Immediately after adjournment of that trial, in the courtroom and in the presence of many people, William E. Alcorn deliberately spat in Andrew J. Mitchell’s face.
- Mitchell sued Alcorn in tort for the intentional, insulting battery and sought damages.
- A jury in the Circuit Court of Marion County awarded Mitchell $1,000 in damages.
- Alcorn appealed, primarily arguing the damages were excessive; he also challenged the jury instructions.
- The record indicated Alcorn was a person of substantial means.

## Issues

1. Whether a $1,000 damages award for a non-injurious but intentionally insulting battery (spitting) was excessive as a matter of law.
2. Whether punitive (“vindictive”) damages were permissible based on malice, wilfulness, wantonness, outrage, and indignity.
3. Whether the trial court committed reversible error in giving or refusing jury instructions.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed the judgment for Mitchell.
- The court held the award was not excessive given the deliberate, malicious, and publicly degrading nature of the act.
- The court approved submitting punitive damages to the jury where the wrong is attended by malice and aggravated indignity.
- The court found no substantial error in the jury instructions.

## Legal Principles

- Punitive (vindictive) damages may be awarded in civil tort actions when the defendant’s conduct is marked by malice, wilfulness, wantonness, outrage, or indignity.
- A battery intended chiefly as an insult and public humiliation can justify substantial punitive damages even without significant physical injury.
- “Liberal damages” may serve to deter retaliatory violence and preserve public order by providing a meaningful legal remedy for provocative personal outrages.
- The setting and publicity of the wrong, including misconduct occurring in a courtroom during ongoing litigation, may aggravate the injury and support higher punitive damages.
- A defendant’s financial condition may be considered when assessing whether a punitive award is excessive as punishment and deterrence.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a $1,000 verdict for an intentional, public spitting in a courtroom, ruling that punitive damages were properly available for a malicious dignitary battery and that the amount was not excessive, particularly in light of the affront’s severity, its threat to public peace, and the defendant’s apparent wealth.


Alcorn v. Mitchell, 63 Ill. 553 (Ill. 1872)