See Hankins v. Hankins, 202 N.C. 358, 162 S.E. 766 (1932); Heist v. Heist, 46 N.C. App. 521, 265 S.E.2d 434 (1980); Warner v. Torrence, 2 N.C. App. 384, 163 S.E.2d 90 (1968). In this context, the term "malice" does not necessarily mean that which proceeds from a spiteful, malignant, or revengeful disposition, but merely implies conduct injurious to another, though proceeding from an ill-regulated mind not sufficiently cautious before it occasions the injury.

Turning to the case at bar, in order for a jury to award damages on an alienation of affection claim, it must first find: (1) that there was a marriage with love and affection; (2) that the love and affection was alienated and destroyed; and (3) that the wrongful and malicious acts of defendant produced the loss of love and affection." Ward v. Beaton, 141 N.C. App. 44, 47, 539 S.E.2d 30, 33 (2000) (emphasis added) (citing Hankins v. Hankins, 202 N.C. 358, 361, 162 S.E. 766, 767 (1932)). Punitive damages are recoverable in an action for alienation of affections:

PLESS, J. TO establish a case against the defendant for alienation of his wife's affections, the law imposes upon the plaintiff, Litchfield, the burden of showing, by competent evidence, the following: "(1) That he and his wife were happily married, and that a genuine love and affection existed between them; (2) that the love and affection so existing was alienated and destroyed; (3) that the wrongful and malicious acts of the defendants produced and brought about the loss and alienation of such love and affection. Hankins v. Hankins, 202 N.C. 358, 162 S.E. 766." Ridenhour v. Miller, 225 N.C. 543, 35 S.E.2d 611.

The essential elements of an action for alienation of affections are the marriage, the loss of affection or consortium, the wrongful and malicious conduct of the defendant, and a causal connection between such loss and such conduct. Cottle v. Johnson, supra; Rose v. Dean, supra; Hankins v. Hankins 202 N.C. 358, 162 S.E. 766; Ridenhour v. Miller, 225 N.C. 543, 35 S.E.2d 611; 27 Am. Jur., Husband and Wife, secs. 523 and 524; 42 C.J.S., Husband and Wife, sec. 663. Rose v. Dean, supra, was an action for damages for alienation of the affections of plaintiff's wife.

The disposition of this appeal turns upon whether or not plaintiff introduced sufficient evidence to entitle him to have his case submitted to a jury. Upon the institution of this action against the defendants, alleging the affections of his wife had been alienated by them, the law imposed upon him the burden of showing, by competent evidence, the following: (1) That he and his wife were happily married, and that a genuine love and affection existed between them; (2) that the love and affection so existing was alienated and destroyed; (3) that the wrongful and malicious acts of the defendants produced and brought about the loss and alienation of such love and affection. Hankins v. Hankins, 202 N.C. 358, 162 S.E. 766. In the instant case there is no evidence tending to show that the defendants or either of them advised with or counseled plaintiff's wife with respect to her marital relationship prior to the separation.

This necessitates a new trial on the first cause of action, because the first and second issues were submitted jointly to the jury, and the 3rd, 4th and 5th issues would need to be reconsidered after elimination of the second issue. Hankins v. Hankins, 202 N.C. 358, 162 S.E. 766; 27 Am.Jur., 129. On first cause of action, New trial.

The case was made to turn on whether the defendant, in what she did, was actuated by natural parental regard for her son or by malice towards the plaintiff. Hankins v. Hankins, 202 N.C. 358, 162 S.E. 766; Townsend v. Holderby, 197 N.C. 550, 149 S.E. 855; Brown v. Brown, 124 N.C. 19, 32 S.E. 320. For valuable case on the subject, see Multer v. Knibbs, 193 Mass. 556, 79 N.E. 762, as reported in 9 L.R.A. (N.S.), 322, with note. It is urged for error that in enumerating the elements of damage "loss of his assistance" was included, without limiting such future loss, if any, to its present worth or present cash value.

It would serve no useful purpose to detail the evidence in this case. Suffice it to say, it fails to establish liability under the principles announced in Hankins v. Hankins, 202 N.C. 358, 162 S.E. 766; Townsend v. Holderby, 197 N.C. 550, 149 S.E. 855; Brown v. Brown, 124 N.C. 19, 32 S.E. 320. There was no error in dismissing the action as in case of nonsuit.

It may be that the objections were not quite what they should have been. In view of another trial, however, we think we should say that while courts appear to have been liberal in admitting testimony in cases of this character to show the relations of the parties and the motives of the defendants (Noll v. Carlin, 101 Or. 203, 199 P. 596), at the same time "the courts invariably sound a warning that such evidence may easily wander too far afield." (Hankins v. Hankins, 202 N.C. 358, 162 S.E. 766), and we think that the foregoing testimony went too far afield. It is most difficult to see how it could reasonably be said to have a tendency to prove the issues herein, namely, the fact of alienation and that the parents maliciously caused it.

Norman Owen Trucking v. Morkoski, 131 N.C. App. 168, 172, 506 S.E.2d 267, 270 (1998). To survive a motion for directed verdict on a claim for alienation of affections, the plaintiff must present evidence to show: (1) that there was a marriage with love and affection; (2) that the love and affection was alienated and destroyed; and (3) that the wrongful and malicious acts of defendant produced the loss of love and affection. Hankins v. Hankins, 202 N.C. 358, 361, 162 S.E. 766, 767 (1932). The "malicious acts" required have been defined as acts constituting "`unjustifiable conduct causing the injury complained of.'" Chappell v. Redding, 67 N.C. App. 397, 400, 313 S.E.2d 239, 241 (quoting Heist v. Heist, 46 N.C. App. 521, 523, 265 S.E.2d 434, 436 (1980)), disc. review denied, 311 N.C. 399, 319 S.E.2d 268 (1984).