Hornstein v. Yarrington, 1925 OK 440, ยถ 5, 237 P. 73. Proving the precise amount of such damages is, by their very nature, almost impossible. Browning v. Ray, 1968 OK 52, ยถ 13, 440 P.2d 721. Where it is plainly apparent from the injury alone that the injured person must of necessity undergo pain and suffering, the jury may infer that fact from the injury itself. Blanke v. Alexander, 152 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir.1998); Edwards v. Chandler, 1957 OK 45, ยถ 5, 308 P.2d 295. There is no absolute standard to measure damages.
Hornstein v. Yarrington, 1925 OK 440, ยถ5, 237 P. 73. Proving the precise amount of such damages is, by their very nature, almost impossible. Browning v. Ray, 1968 OK 52, ยถ13, 440 P.2d 721. Where it is plainly apparent from the injury alone that the injured person must of necessity undergo pain and suffering, the jury may infer that fact from the injury itself. Blanke v. Alexander, 152 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 1998); Edwards v. Chandler, 1957 OK 45, ยถ5, 308 P.2d 295. There is no absolute standard to measure damages.
We find no merit in this contention. In Browning v. Ray, 440 P.2d 721 (Okl. 1968), the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that although the plaintiff must prove specific damages such as loss of earnings or profits from a business, general damages for injury to reputation and emotional or mental distress may be awarded assuming the essential elements of malicious prosecution are established. Kitchens adequately established both his specific damages and the essential elements of his case.
"Proving the precise amount of such damages is, by their very nature, almost impossible." West, 273 P.3d at 36 n. 17 (citing Browning v. Ray, 440 P.2d 721 (Okla. 1968)). When there is no identifiable measure of damages, they are properly determined by the trier of fact according to "the judgment and opinion of a reasonable person."
See also 12 O.S. 1991 ยง 2013[ 12-2013] for Oklahoma's statutory treatment of counterclaims.Reeves v. Agee, Okla., 769 P.2d 745, 752 (1989); Young v. First State Bank, Watonga, Okla., 628 P.2d 707, 709 (1981); Page v. Rose, Okla., 546 P.2d 617, 620 (1976); Browning v. Ray, Okla., 440 P.2d 721, 724 (1968); Towne v. Martin, 196 Okla. 510, 166 P.2d 98, 100 (1945); Sawyer v. Shick, 30 Okla. 353, 120 P. 581, 582 (1911). While earlier components of the predicate may serve as an element's proof in a later proceeding, each individual suit must satisfy the critical elements of (a) initiation by the malicious-prosecution defendant, (b) termination favorable to the malicious-prosecution plaintiff and (c) lack of probable cause.
Nguyen v. State, 772 P.2d 401, 403 (Okla. Cr. 1989); 22 O.S. 1981 ยง 991c[ 22-991c]. We recognize that an indirect contempt action is civil in nature and not governed by the criminal law, Browning v. Ray, 440 P.2d 721, 725 (Okla. 1968). However, the proceedings appear analogous in considering the appealability of an order.
Bank claims that Young's evidence of damages was wholly speculative and, as such was improperly admitted and insufficient to support the verdict. Young relies on Browning v. Ray, Okla., 440 P.2d 721, 724 (1958), where we said: ". . . general damages for injury to reputation and emotional or mental distress, the precise amount of which by their very nature is almost impossible of proof and which damages almost certainly result if one has been maliciously prosecuted, may be awarded if plaintiff has established the other essential elements of an action for malicious prosecution."
Owing to the special nature of damages plaintiff claimed for shame, embarrassment and humiliation, which the law leaves largely to the jury's common sense, judgment and/or discretion, without a definite yard stick, or rule of measurement, to go by, this Court is virtually restricted to merely ascertaining if there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to support the jury's verdict. John A. Brown Company v. Shelton, Okla., 391 P.2d 259. Also see Browning v. Ray, Okla., 440 P.2d 721. We conclude there is such evidence to support the verdict.
Willful disobedience of an order made by a court in this state not committed in presence of the court is an indirect contempt. Browning v. Ray, Okla., 440 P.2d 721; Seifried v. State ex rel. Bash, 184 Okla. 299, 86 P.2d 1008. The mentioned terms of the trial court's order were not complied with by defendant. This poses the issue whether, upon showing of defendant's failure to discharge the obligation imposed by the court's order, defendant was guilty of such conduct as constituted willful disobedience for which punishment should be ordered for the purpose of enforcement?
The jury may award and plaintiff correctly recover for injuries such as emotional or mental distress and injury to reputation which necessarily resulted from the defendants' wrongful acts, once the plaintiff has established the essential elements of a malicious prosecution action. Browning v. Ray, 440 P.2d 721 (Okla. 1968); Restatement of the Law, Torts, ยง 670. Exemplary damages may be awarded against Target for the act of his agent even though the principal did not personally participate in or ratify the act. Kurn v. Radencic, 193 Okla. 126, 141 P.2d 580 (1943).