Facts: The defendant tried to serve a summons on the plaintiff at the plaintiff's house. A dispute ensued, during which the plaintiff threatened to kill the defendant. When the defendant started to drive away from the plaintiff's house, the plaintiff threw himself across the car's bonnet. The defendant drove on at speeds up to 40 kph, weaving about in an attempt to throw the plaintiff off the car. After approximately half a kilometre, the defendant's sudden braking dislodged the plaintiff, who fell onto the road. The defendant drove off and the injured plaintiff was found by a neighbour. The plaintiff was hospitalised with bone fractures in both feet and other less serious injuries. In addition to compensatory damages, the plaintiff was awarded a sum of $5,000 as exemplary damages. The defendant appealed to the High Court against the award of exemplary damages.
Issue: Should exemplary damages have been awarded in these circumstances?
Decision: The damages had been properly awarded.
Reason: The Court (at 12) approved the following passage from Mayne & McGregor on Damages (12th ed., 1961, p. 196):
"Such damages ... can apply only where the conduct of the defendant merits punishment, which is only considered to be so where his conduct is wanton, as where it discloses fraud, malice, violence, cruelty, insolence or the like, or, as it is sometimes put, where he acts in contumelious disregard of the plaintiff's rights".
Note: The defendant also argued that because his insurance would cover the exemplary damages, they would have no deterrent effect and thus should not be awarded. The court rejected this argument, explaining that exemplary damages also served to deter others from engaging in similar conduct.