J. M. FIELDS, INC., D/B/A J. M. FIELDS, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
SHIRLEY SMUCKLER, ETC., ET AL., APPELLEES

Fla. 3d DCA | 1980-06-17
No. 79-926
Per Curiam
385 So. 2d 124 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1980) Caution
Cited by 11 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

The court affirmed the trial judgment, holding that the trial court properly submitted the issues of proximate cause, compensatory damages, and punitive damages to the jury, and properly denied the defendant's motions for directed verdict, new trial, and set-off.


Holding

The trial court did not err in denying the appellant's motions for directed verdict and new trial, in submitting punitive damages to the jury, or in denying a set-off, as proximate cause and damages were jury questions supported by sufficient evidence.


Headnotes

[1] Proximate cause is a jury question when the record presents conflicting evidence or reasonable inferences regarding causation.

[2] Punitive damages may be submitted to the jury when the record supports a claim for punitive damages.

Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

J. M. Fields, Inc. was sued by Shirley Smuckler and others in a case involving issues of proximate cause and damages.…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The final judgment under review is affirmed upon a holding that: (a) the trial court did not err in denying the appellant’s motion for directed verdict in this cause as the issue of proximate cause was, on this record, properly one for the jury to decide, Vining v. Avis Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc., 354 So. 2d 54, 55-56 (Fla.1977); Nicholas v. Miami Burglar Alarm Co. Inc., 339 So. 2d 175 (Fla.1976); Holley v. Mt. Zion Terrace Apartments, Inc., 382 So. 2d 98 (Fla.3d DCA 1980); Angell v.

F. Avanzini Lumber Co., 363 So. 2d 571 (Fla.2d DCA 1978); Tamiami Gun Shop v. Klein, 109 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1959); 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(b)(1) (1976); see Huddleston v. United States, 415 U.S. 814, 824, 94 S.Ct. 1262, 1268, 39 L.Ed.2d 782 (1974); Hetherton v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 593 F. 2d 526 (3rd Cir. 1979); Underwood v. United States, 356 F. 2d 92 (5th Cir. 1966); Franco v. Bunyard, 261 Ark. 144, 547 S.W. 2d 91 (1977); (b) the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion for a new trial as there was, on this record, sufficient evidence to sustain the jury’s compensatory damage award, Savarese v. Hill, 128 So. 2d 775, 776, n.4 (Fla.3d DCA 1961); (c) the trial court did not err in declining to strike the claim for punitive damages, as, in this record, the claim was properly submitted to the jury, Doral Country Club, Inc. v. Lind-gren Plumbing Co., 175 So. 2d 570, 571 (Fla.3d DCA 1965); and, (d) the trial court did not err in denying the appellant’s motion for a set-off, as, on this record, no right to a set-off existed. Devlin v. McMannis, 231 So. 2d 194 (Fla.1970).

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • …JJ., concur. OVERTON, J., dissents with an opinion, in which ADKINS, J., concurs. .The three cases cited in the PSC’s brief as controlling are inapposite. The most recent of these, Corporation de Gestion Ste-Foy, Inc. v. Florida Power & Light Co. 385 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), does not involve utility tariffs or rule-making at all. The appellant had sought a declaratory judgment that the power company was estopped from collecting amounts it had negligently underbilled. The district court held merely th…
  • K-Mart Enters. OF Fla., Inc. v. Keller, 439 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
    …nal misuse of a firearm does not insulate the seller from liability arising out of a violation of similar provisions of the Gun Control Act. Decker v. Gibson Products Co. of Albany, Inc., supra; Franco v. Bunyard, supra; J.M. Fields Co. v. Smuckler, 385 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (per curiam); see also, Hetherton v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., supra; Sosa v. Coleman, 646 F. 2d 991 (5th Cir.1981); contra, Robinson v. Howard Brothers of Jackson, Inc., 372 So. 2d 1074 (Miss.1979). We follow these decisions in this…
  • Bryant v. The Sch. Bd. OF Duval Cnty., 399 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
    …Inc. v. Garland, 269 So. 2d 708, 711 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972). Since there remains before us a question concerning what is the proximate cause of Glenn Bryant’s injuries, this case must be remanded for further proceedings. J. M. Fields, Inc. v. Smuckler, 385 So. 2d 124 (Fla.3d DCA 1980). Count III of the complaint was directed against Rupp and Stasco in their individual capacities. It, like the first two counts against the Board, was apparently based upon “simple” or “ordinary” negligence, because the two individ…

Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (11 total)

View all 11 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw