## Facts

- Aleta Jones worked as a nurse’s aide for Jerome Fisher and Clara Fisher, who owned and operated a nursing home in Middleton, Wisconsin.
- Jones needed dentures, and the Fishers advanced her money as a loan to pay for the dental work.
- Shortly after receiving the dental work, Jones left the Fishers’ employment.
- When Jones returned to collect her final paycheck, the parties disputed whether and how the denture loan would be repaid.
- The confrontation escalated into a brief physical altercation in which the Fishers restrained Jones and removed (or caused to be removed) her dentures.
- Jones had no significant physical injury: she was not bruised or scarred and did not seek medical treatment.
- Jones testified that the incident caused embarrassment and humiliation and affected her emotional state, including loss of sleep.
- Jones sued for assault and battery and sought compensatory and punitive damages.
- A jury awarded Jones $1,000 in compensatory damages and $5,000 in punitive damages.
- The trial court entered judgment on the verdict and denied post-verdict relief.
- On appeal, the Fishers did not challenge the finding of assault and battery; they argued that the compensatory and punitive awards were excessive and also challenged certain evidentiary rulings, including testimony about their income and use of an adverse examination transcript.

## Issues

1. Were the jury’s compensatory damages excessive where the plaintiff proved humiliation and mental suffering but little to no physical injury?
2. Were the jury’s punitive damages excessive under the circumstances of the assault and battery?
3. Did the trial court err by requiring the defendants to testify about their net income for 1966 and 1967 in connection with punitive damages?
4. Did the trial court err by permitting plaintiff’s counsel to read portions of the plaintiff’s adverse examination into evidence before the jury?

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the judgment.
- The $1,000 compensatory award was not excessive; compensatory damages may include mental suffering such as humiliation, shame, embarrassment, and fear, even where physical injury is slight.
- The $5,000 punitive award was not excessive in light of the defendants’ conduct and the function of punitive damages as punishment and deterrence.
- The trial court did not commit reversible error by allowing evidence of the defendants’ net income; a defendant’s financial condition may be considered when fixing punitive damages.
- The trial court did not err in permitting portions of the plaintiff’s adverse examination to be read to the jury; the use was allowed under applicable procedure and did not warrant reversal.
- Although the defendants invoked the remittitur approach associated with *Powers*, the court found no basis to reduce the verdict because the damages were not excessive.

## Legal Principles

- Compensatory damages serve to compensate for actual harm and may include pain and suffering and mental suffering, including humiliation, shame, embarrassment, and fear.
- A compensatory award for mental suffering is permitted even when the plaintiff shows little physical injury, so long as the evidence supports the claimed emotional harm.
- Punitive damages are intended to punish the wrongdoer and deter similar conduct; the amount is reviewed for excessiveness, but substantial deference is given to the jury and trial court when the award is supported by the record.
- In assessing punitive damages, the defendant’s financial condition (including income) may be received in evidence because ability to pay bears on the amount needed for punishment and deterrence.
- When a party claims damages are excessive and seeks a new trial on that ground, a court may, where excessiveness is shown, offer the plaintiff the option of accepting a reduced amount or proceeding to a new trial on damages; if damages are not excessive, no reduction is warranted.
- Use of testimony from an adverse examination may be allowed at trial under applicable rules; reversal requires a showing of error and prejudice.

## Conclusion

*Jones v. Fisher* upheld a jury’s compensatory and punitive awards arising from an assault and battery in which nursing-home owners restrained a former employee and took her dentures during a loan-repayment dispute; the court concluded that damages for humiliation and mental suffering were recoverable despite minimal physical injury, that the punitive award was not excessive, and that the challenged evidentiary rulings did not justify reversal.


Jones v. Fisher, 42 Wis.2d 209, 166 N.W.2d 175 (1969)