Grand Union Super Markets, Inc. v. De Aquinos

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Grand Union Super Markets, Inc. v. De Aquinos

135 So. 2d 754

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 18, 1961

DocketNo. 61-217

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 135 So. 2d 754 (Grand Union Super Markets, Inc. v. De Aquinos) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Grand Union Super Markets, Inc. v. De Aquinos, 135 So. 2d 754 (Fla. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, who was the defendant below, seeks review of a final judgment entered upon a jury verdict, in an action for false imprisonment.

By their verdict, the jury awarded $3,500.00 as compensatory damages and $5,000.00 as punitive damages. Appellant, not having argued the sufficiency of the evidence in its brief to support the compensatory award, has abandoned any assignments of error that may have gone to this point. F.A.R. 3.7(i), 31 F.S.A.; 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, § 127. Therefore, the final judgment in this respect is affirmed.

The verdict as to punitive damages and the final judgment thereon must be reversed, as the record on appeal fails to disclose the ingredients of malice, moral turpitude, or wanton and outrageous disregard of the plaintiffs’ rights. See: 9 Fla. Jur., Damages, § 119. In the instant case, the detention took place after the appellant’s store was closed and without oppression or embarrassment to the appellees in public. The record reveals that no greater force was employed in the detention than would have been necessary had the appel-lees been guilty of the alleged theft, and such detention in and of itself will not support an award for punitive damages. Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Archer, 126 Fla. 308, 171 So. 214.

[755]*755Therefore, this cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to eliminate from the final judgment the award for punitive damages, as no instructions on punitive damages should have been given to the jury, and the appellant's objections to any such charges should have been sustained.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, who was the defendant below, seeks review of a final judgment entered upon a jury verdict, in an action for false imprisonment.

By their verdict, the jury awarded $3,500.00 as compensatory damages and $5,000.00 as punitive damages. Appellant, not having argued the sufficiency of the evidence in its brief to support the compensatory award, has abandoned any assignments of error that may have gone to this point. F.A.R. 3.7(i), 31 F.S.A.; 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, § 127. Therefore, the final judgment in this respect is affirmed.

The verdict as to punitive damages and the final judgment thereon must be reversed, as the record on appeal fails to disclose the ingredients of malice, moral turpitude, or wanton and outrageous disregard of the plaintiffs’ rights. See: 9 Fla. Jur., Damages, § 119. In the instant case, the detention took place after the appellant’s store was closed and without oppression or embarrassment to the appellees in public. The record reveals that no greater force was employed in the detention than would have been necessary had the appel-lees been guilty of the alleged theft, and such detention in and of itself will not support an award for punitive damages. Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Archer, 126 Fla. 308, 171 So. 214.

[755]*755Therefore, this cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to eliminate from the final judgment the award for punitive damages, as no instructions on punitive damages should have been given to the jury, and the appellant's objections to any such charges should have been sustained.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 So. 2d 754, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grand-union-super-markets-inc-v-de-aquinos-fladistctapp-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack