 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State ex rel Hunter v. City of Alliance3/11/2002
sion of the Hospital Board to use eminent domain to acquire property, were destroyed by Mayor Carr. A $1,000.00 forfeiture shall be awarded for each public record that was destroyed by Mayor Carr which had also been requested by the appellees. The next question is how the forfeiture should be awarded since, in this case, we have two relators (appellees). We find that the question is answered by our determination that R.C. 149.351 is punitive in nature and not designed to compensate the aggrieved party. Punitive awards are designed to punish the guilty party and deter the prohibited conduct. See Digital & Analog Design Corp. v. North Supply Co. (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 657, 660, rejected on other grounds by Zoppo v. Homestead Ins. Co. (1994), 71 OS3 552, 557; Detling v. Chockley (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d 134. Compensatory damages, on the other hand, are awarded to make the victim whole. Digital & Analog Design Corp. v. North Supply Co., supra. In that the statute in question is punitive in nature, designed to deter the destruction of public records, we find that the award of any forfeiture must be shared among the relators. Therefore, since we have two relators in this case, any forfeiture awarded should be divided among the appellees, the relators, in equal shares. This matter is, therefore, reversed and remanded to the trial court. The trial court is instructed to make an award of damages in accordance with this opinion. The total forfeiture shall then be ordered to be split equally between the appellees. Appellees' cross assignments of error are sustained, in part, and overruled, in part. Therefore, the judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Hoffman, J. and Wise, J. concur
|