King v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

King v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.

498 So. 2d 650, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2600, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 11389

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 10, 1986

DocketNo. BK-324

StatusPublished

This text of 498 So. 2d 650 (King v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.) 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

King v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 498 So. 2d 650, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2600, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 11389 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal from a directed verdict entered pursuant to defendants’ (Winn-Dixie and Wackenhut’s) post-trial motion. The order vacates the punitive damages awarded by the jury in a suit for false imprisonment. We affirm.

We find the facts presented do not support an award of punitive damages, as the security guards employed by Wackenhut and Winn-Dixie did not act with wanton and outrageous disregard of appellant’s (Ms. King’s) rights. See Harris v. Lewis State Bank, 482 So.2d 1378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); White Construction Company v. DuPont, 455 So.2d 1026 (Fla.1984); American Cyanamid Company v. Roy, 498 So.2d 859 (Fla.1986). Accordingly, we affirm.

BOOTH, C.J., and WENTWORTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal from a directed verdict entered pursuant to defendants’ (Winn-Dixie and Wackenhut’s) post-trial motion. The order vacates the punitive damages awarded by the jury in a suit for false imprisonment. We affirm.

We find the facts presented do not support an award of punitive damages, as the security guards employed by Wackenhut and Winn-Dixie did not act with wanton and outrageous disregard of appellant’s (Ms. King’s) rights. See Harris v. Lewis State Bank, 482 So.2d 1378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); White Construction Company v. DuPont, 455 So.2d 1026 (Fla.1984); American Cyanamid Company v. Roy, 498 So.2d 859 (Fla.1986). Accordingly, we affirm.

BOOTH, C.J., and WENTWORTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

498 So. 2d 650, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2600, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 11389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-winn-dixie-stores-inc-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack