## Facts

- Gilbert Shugar entered H. L. Guill’s restaurant, served himself coffee without paying first, and stated it was “on the house,” referring to a prior dispute over $6.25 for formica.
- Guill called Shugar “cheap,” ordered him to leave, and Shugar responded, “make me.”
- Guill grabbed Shugar in a bear hug and moved him toward the door; Shugar broke free and the men exchanged blows.
- A bystander intervened; Shugar lowered his hands believing the fight had ended.
- Guill then struck Shugar in the face, breaking Shugar’s nose and causing substantial bleeding and medical treatment.
- Shugar sued for assault and battery, alleging Guill, “without just cause,” “intentionally, willfully and maliciously” assaulted and battered him, causing serious injury and aggravating a preexisting condition, and sought compensatory and punitive damages.

## Issues

1. Whether a complaint alleging that a defendant, “without just cause,” “intentionally, willfully and maliciously” committed assault and battery sufficiently pleads the aggravating circumstances required to support punitive damages.
2. Whether, given the pleadings and trial evidence, punitive damages were properly submitted to the jury and sustained.

## Decision

- The jury found Guill liable and awarded $2,000 compensatory damages and $2,500 punitive damages.
- The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed liability and compensatory damages but vacated punitive damages, holding the pleading insufficiently alleged aggravating circumstances.
- The Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed on punitive damages and reinstated the $2,500 punitive award, thereby reinstating the trial court’s judgment in full.

## Legal Principles

- In North Carolina tort actions, punitive damages require allegations and proof of aggravating factors such as actual malice, oppression, gross and willful wrong, insult or indignity, or reckless or wanton disregard of another’s rights.
- Pleadings are construed liberally to achieve substantial justice; a complaint need not recite detailed evidentiary facts if it gives fair notice of a punitive-damages theory.
- In an intentional-tort action for assault and battery, allegations that the defendant acted “without just cause” and “intentionally, willfully and maliciously,” coupled with a request for punitive damages, can sufficiently plead the aggravating circumstances necessary to submit punitive damages to the jury.
- Once fair notice is provided by the pleadings, the central question becomes whether the trial evidence supports a finding of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct warranting punitive damages.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that allegations of an intentional assault and battery committed “without just cause” and in a “willful and malicious” manner were sufficient, under liberal pleading rules, to support a punitive-damages claim and to sustain the jury’s punitive award based on the evidence.


Shugar v. Guill, 302 N.C. 332, 283 S.E.2d 507 (1981)