Molenaar v. United Cattle Co., 553 N.W.2d 424 (1996)

Citation: Molenaar v. United Cattle Co., 553 N.W.2d 424 (1996)
Parent Document: Molenaar v. United Cattle Co., 553 N.W.2d 424 (1996)
Jurisdiction: Minnesota (state)
Effective Date: 1996-07-30
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1857949/molenaar-v-united-cattle-co/ ↗

Full Text

1,450 chars

Punitive damages implement this philosophy by economically deterring wrongful interference with the rights of others. Absent punitive damages, criminal prosecution and tainted goodwill remain the only sanctions moderating the conduct of individuals or companies that would seek to wrongfully deprive others of their property through fraud or trickery. See Gore, — U.S. at -, 116 S.Ct. at 1599 (“exemplary damages imposed on a defendant should reflect ‘the enormity of his offense.’ Day v. Woodworth, 54 U.S. (13 How.) 363, 371, 14 L.Ed. 181 (1852). * * * ‘[T]rickery and deceit’ are more reprehensible than negligence.”) (quoting TXO Prod. Corp. v. Alliance Resources, 509 U.S. 443, 462, 113 S.Ct. 2711, 2722, 125 L.Ed.2d 366 (1993)). Absent punitive damages, one who intentionally and wrongfully takes another’s property has little to fear. The worst civil consequence is that the converted property must be returned to its proper owner. Even this remedy must be discounted by the possibility that the owner will not seek legal recovery or will not prevail. Universal abolition of punitive damages for property damage dramatically improves the profitability of theft and diminishes society’s reenforcement of personal accountability. Some states have restricted or otherwise restructured punitive damages, but we are aware of no state that has abolished punitive damages for injuries to property while allowing punitive damages for personal injury.4

Other Sections in This Document (93)

Full Text