Angus v. Ventura
Ohio Court of Appeals
1999 WL 33287 (1999)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
James Angus (plaintiff) was a contractor who performed home-improvement work. Jim Ventura (defendant) contracted with Angus on three occasions in 1994 to perform roofing and siding work at Ventura’s house. Ventura made down payments and periodic progress payments to Angus. At one point, Angus finished his work, and Ventura still owed $1,000 under the contracts. Angus went to Ventura’s house to collect the final payment. According to Angus, Ventura became angry and refused to pay due to several defective roof shingles. Angus offered to repair the shingles, but Ventura said he would not pay the remaining balance owed. Angus got in his truck to leave. Through the truck window, Ventura spit on Angus’s face. Angus made an immediate police report, but no charges were brought against Ventura. About a week later, Ventura bragged to a mutual acquaintance of the men about having spit on Angus. After the incident, Angus grew depressed and anxious, lost concentration, had trouble sleeping, and experienced extreme mood swings. Angus sought psychological treatment and improved after five sessions. Angus sued Ventura for breach of contract, battery, and emotional distress. Following trial, a jury awarded damages of $1,000 to Angus on the contract claim, $20,000 for Angus’s battery and emotional-distress claims ($10,000 for each claim), and $5,000 in punitive damages. Ventura appealed, arguing that the $20,000 compensatory-damages award for battery and emotional distress was not supported by the evidence because Angus did not suffer bodily harm or serious emotional distress.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Dickinson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.