As construed, this provision imparts no discretion to the trial court; it must be applied to any judgment resulting from an action for personal injuries. Johnson v. Enlow, 132 Colo. 101, 286 P.2d 630. And see Kinsella v. Leonard, supra. Stemple, as cross-appellant, recognizes that the elements comprising his measure of damages are based on Wyoming law, the place of injury, but contends that interest on these damages must be calculated according to the above-cited Colorado statute. Hays v. Arbuckle, 72 Colo. 328, 211 P. 101, is claimed to establish the rule that in Colorado interest on a judgment must be computed according to the law of the forum. In that case, the plaintiff recovered money lent to the defendant in California and the Colorado Supreme Court held that as an incident of the contractual recovery, "[t]he plaintiff below had the right to * * * have her damages measured by the legal rate of interest, according to the law of the place where the suit was brought."

Judicial intervention here to create the right the present plaintiff claims would only distort the uncertain picture Virginia's General Assembly has painted. State courts have denied the wife's action in the following cases: Smith v. United Const. Workers, 271 Ala. 42, 122 So.2d 153; Jeune v. Del E. Webb Const. Co., 77 Ariz. 226, 269 P.2d 723; Deshotel v. Atchison, T. S.F. Ry. Co., 50 Cal.2d 664, 328 P.2d 449; Johnson v. Enlow, 132 Colo. 101, 286 P.2d 630; Lockwood v. Wilson H. Lee Co., 144 Conn. 155, 128 A.2d 330; Ripley v. Ewell, 61 So.2d 420 ( Fla.); Miller v. Sparks, 189 N.E.2d 720 Ind.App.); Coastal Tank Lines v. Canoles, 207 Md. 37, 113 A.2d 82; State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Village of Isle, 265 Minn. 360, 122 N.W.2d 36; Snodgrass v. Cherry-Burrell Corp., 103 N.H. 56, 164 A.2d 579; La Eace v. Cincinnati, N. C. Ry. Co., 249 S.W.2d 534 ( Ky.); Larocca v. American Chain Cable Co., 23 N.J.Super. 195, 92 A.2d 811, aff'd 13 N.J. 1, 97 A.2d 680; Roseberry v. Starkovich, 73 N.M. 211, 387 P.2d 321; Kronenbitter v. Washburn Wire Co., 4 N.Y.2d 524, 176 N.Y.S.2d 354, 151 N.E.2d 898; Nelson v. A.M. Lockett Co., 206 Okl. 334, 243 P.2d 719; Neuberg v. Bobowicz, 401 Pa. 146, 162 A.2d 662; Page v. Winter, 240 S.C. 516, 126 S.E.2d 570; Garrett v. Reno Oil Co., 271 S.W.2d 764 ( Tex.Civ.App.); Ash v. S.S. Mullen. Inc., 43 Wash.2d 345, 261 P.2d 118; Seagraves v. Legg, 127 S.E.2d 605 ( W.Va.); Nickel v. Hardware Mut. Cas. Co., 269 Wis. 647, 70 N

The ruling in Hitaffer on the point here relevant was followed in Rollins v. District of Columbia, 105 U.S.App.D.C. 155, 265 F.2d 347 (1959), and in Aubrey v. United States, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 65, 254 F.2d 768, 772-773 (1958), although in the latter case, as in Brown v. Curtin Johnson, Inc., 95 U.S.App.D.C. 234, 221 F.2d 106, 108 (1955), the court suggested that it might sometime want to reconsider the question. Smith v. United Constr. Workers, 271 Ala. 42, 122 So.2d 153 (1960); Jeune v. Del E. Webb Constr. Co., 77 Ariz. 226, 269 P.2d 723 (1954); Deshotel v. Atchison, T. S.F. Ry., 50 Cal.2d 664, 328 P.2d 449 (1958); Johnson v. Enlow, 132 Colo. 101, 286 P.2d 630, 634 (1955); Lockwood v. Wilson H. Lee Co., 144 Conn. 155, 128 A.2d 330 (1956); Ripley v. Ewell, 61 So.2d 420 (Fla. 1952); Criqui v. Blaw-Knox Corp., 318 F.2d 811 (10 Cir., 1963) (Kansas law); La Eace v. Cincinnati, N. C. Ry., 249 S.W.2d 534 (Ky. 1952); Coastal Tank Lines, Inc. v. Canoles, 207 Md. 37, 113 A.2d 82 (1955); Snodgrass v. Cherry-Burrell Corp., 103 N.H. 56, 164 A.2d 579 (1960); Larocca v. American Chain Cable Co., 23 N.J. Super. 195, 92 A.2d 811 (App. Div. 1952); Kronenbitter v. Washburn Wire Co., 4 N.Y.2d 524, 176 N.Y.S.2d 354, 151 N.E.2d 898 (1958); Nelson v. A.M. Lockett Co., 206 Okla. 334, 243 P.2d 719 (1952); Neuberg v. Bobowicz, 401 Pa. 146, 162 A.2d 662 (1960); Page v. Winter, 240 S.C. 516, 126 S.E.2d 570 (1962); Garrett v. Reno Oil Co., 271 S.W.2d 764 (Tex.Civ.App. 1954); Ash v. S.S. Mullen, Inc., 43 Wn.2d 345, 261 P.2d 118 (1953); Seagraves v. Legg, 127 S.E.2d 605 (W.Va. 1962); Nickel v. Hardware Mut. Cas. Co., 269 Wis. 647, 70 N.W.2d 205 (1955).

Further, "[a]s construed, this provision imparts no discretion to the trial court; it must be applied to any judgment resulting from an action for personal injuries." Stemple v. Phillips Petroleum Company, 430 F.2d 178, 184 (10th Cir. 1970), citing Johnson v. Enlow, 132 Colo. 101, 286 P.2d 630 (1955). A case on point is Meller v. Heil Company, 745 F.2d 1297 (10th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1206, 104, S.Ct. 2390, 81 L.Ed.2d 347 (1984), Jessie Meller's husband Jean was killed while servicing a dump truck he drove for a Colorado employer.

The evidence established that if there was any wrongful taking of the property it was done by persons other than Mr. Foster, without his knowledge or direction and not in the discharge of any official duty for which he could be held accountable. In Johnson v. Enlow, 132 Colo. 101, 286 P.2d 630, it was held that under C.R.S. 1953, 35-5-5, a sheriff is liable only for the official acts of his deputies. The asserted "wrongful" taking of the property involved in this case was brought about by a deputy sheriff and it is clear that in removing the property from the place where it was stored he was not performing any official duty as a deputy sheriff.

Such a conclusion would be inconsistent with supreme court opinions construing the predecessor to § 30-10-506 as imposing liability on a sheriff only for the official acts of his deputies. See McCartney v. Foster, 150 Colo. 537, 374 P.2d 704 (1962); Johnson v. Enlow, 132 Colo. 101, 286 P.2d 630 (1955). It would also be inconsistent both with the plain language of the statute, which refers only to "default or misconduct" of a sheriff's employees, and with public policy disfavoring the imposition of liability on public entities for the willful and wanton conduct of their employees.

To justify an award of exemplary damages in an action for false imprisonment, 'the act causing the injuries must be done with an evil intent, and with the purpose of injuring the plaintiff, or with such a wanton and reckless disregard of his rights as to evidence a wrongful motive.' Johnson v. Enlow, 132 Colo. 101, 286 P.2d 630. On the basis of the record before us, we find no evidence to support the conclusion that Wiezorek or Playboy Club acted with an evil intent or wrongful motive.

Appellants argue that an officer making an arrest under a valid warrant cannot be liable for false arrest and imprisonment in the absence of a showing of personal spite or the wanton disregard of the rights of others on the part of the arresting officers. Johnson v. Reddy, Ohio App., 120 N.E.2d 459; Sanders v. Jacobs, 119 Ga. App. 101, 166 S.E.2d 433; Johnson v. Enlow, 132 Colo. 101, 286 P.2d 630. While there is authority in other states to support appellants' insistence, we think the better principles and greater weight of authority is, as the trial court charged the jury, that an officer must act prudently, reasonably and use ordinary care in making arrests, including the ascertainment that the right person is being arrested.

In three decisions, uttered prior to the year 1961, our Supreme Court held that a married woman could not recover for loss of her right to consortium "indirectly" resulting from injuries inflicted upon her husband. Giggey v. Gallagher Transportation Co., 101 Colo. 258, 72 P.2d 1100; cited and followed in Franzen v. Zimmerman, 127 Colo. 381, 256 P.2d 897; and in Johnson v. Enlow, 132 Colo. 101, 286 P.2d 630. This was the law of this jurisdiction as to married women, although a directly contrary rule had been applied with respect to such claims when asserted by a husband. Denver Consolidated Tramway Co. v. Riley, 14 Colo. App. 132, 59 P. 476.