Idy Corp. v. Fenton

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Idy Corp. v. Fenton

454 So. 2d 13, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14242

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 17, 1984

DocketNo. 83-2350

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 454 So. 2d 13 (Idy Corp. v. Fenton) 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

Idy Corp. v. Fenton, 454 So. 2d 13, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14242 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff brought suit against Idy Corp., d/b/a Crazy Horse Saloon and its insurance company seeking compensatory and punitive damages.¹ She alleged injury resulting from two separate acts of assault and battery committed on the same evening by Crazy Horse employees. The trial court directed a verdict on the issue of liability as to both alleged assault incidents. [14]*14The jury subsequently awarded $5,000 compensatory damages and $50,000 punitive damages to the plaintiff. There was no apportionment of damages as between the two alleged assaults. Idy Corp. appeals, asserting as its main contention that the trial court erred in directing a verdict in reference to the first assault.

A trial court may properly direct a verdict only in the absence of any evidence or reasonable inferences supportive of the position of the nonmoving party. Hendricks v. Dailey, 208 So.2d 101 (Fla.1968); Dandashi v. Fine, 397 So.2d 442 (Fla.3d DCA 1981). Although defendant offered no testimony at trial concerning the second assault, it did offer some evidence to dispute the tortious nature of the first alleged assault. Several witnesses gave testimony tending to prove that plaintiff became a trespasser by creating a disturbance and then refusing to leave the premises after being asked. The issue of whether defendant’s employees used reasonable force to eject the plaintiff was, therefore, a jury question. The directed verdict was improper.²

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff brought suit against Idy Corp., d/b/a Crazy Horse Saloon and its insurance company seeking compensatory and punitive damages.¹ She alleged injury resulting from two separate acts of assault and battery committed on the same evening by Crazy Horse employees. The trial court directed a verdict on the issue of liability as to both alleged assault incidents. [14]*14The jury subsequently awarded $5,000 compensatory damages and $50,000 punitive damages to the plaintiff. There was no apportionment of damages as between the two alleged assaults. Idy Corp. appeals, asserting as its main contention that the trial court erred in directing a verdict in reference to the first assault.

A trial court may properly direct a verdict only in the absence of any evidence or reasonable inferences supportive of the position of the nonmoving party. Hendricks v. Dailey, 208 So.2d 101 (Fla.1968); Dandashi v. Fine, 397 So.2d 442 (Fla.3d DCA 1981). Although defendant offered no testimony at trial concerning the second assault, it did offer some evidence to dispute the tortious nature of the first alleged assault. Several witnesses gave testimony tending to prove that plaintiff became a trespasser by creating a disturbance and then refusing to leave the premises after being asked. The issue of whether defendant’s employees used reasonable force to eject the plaintiff was, therefore, a jury question. The directed verdict was improper.²

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

454 So. 2d 13, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/idy-corp-v-fenton-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack