Facts
- The Whites bought a Wisconsin home that lacked its own water supply; the neighboring Benkowskis owned a well already piped to the Whites’ house.
- The parties executed a written agreement under which the Benkowskis would supply water for ten years (subject to early termination upon specified events), and the Whites would pay $3 per month plus one-half of future repair and maintenance costs.
- In connection with the arrangement, the Whites paid $400 for the purchase and installation of a new pump and an additional tank to increase well capacity.
- After the neighbors’ relationship deteriorated, the Benkowskis intermittently shut off water to the Whites’ home on multiple dates in 1964 for short periods.
- The Whites presented evidence of resulting inconvenience, including bathroom odor due to lack of water and needing to take children elsewhere for bathing.
- The Benkowskis asserted the shutoffs were to address sand issues in the pipes or to curb what they viewed as excessive water usage.
Issues
- Whether the trial court properly reduced the jury’s compensatory damages award as merely nominal where evidence showed inconvenience from interrupted water service.
- Whether punitive damages may be awarded for a malicious breach of contract when no independent tort claim was tried.
Decision
- The court reinstated the jury’s $10 compensatory damages award, holding it reflected actual damages supported by evidence of inconvenience.
- The court held punitive damages are not recoverable for breach of contract absent an independent tort and therefore affirmed the denial of punitive damages.
- The judgment was modified to award $10 in compensatory damages and no punitive damages.
Legal Principles
- Actual damages in contract are not limited to strictly pecuniary loss; proven inconvenience that naturally and directly results from the breach may be compensable.
- A plaintiff need not prove contract damages with mathematical precision; evidence must supply a reasonable basis for the factfinder to estimate an amount.
- A modest damages award may still be “actual” rather than nominal if grounded in an actual injury.
- Punitive damages are unavailable for a simple breach of contract, even if malicious, unless the defendant’s conduct constitutes an independent, accompanying tort.
Conclusion
The court held that evidence-based inconvenience from interrupted performance can support a small but actual compensatory award in contract, but punitive damages remain unavailable when the action is tried solely as a breach of contract without an independent tort.