RALPH TENNANT, APPELLANT,
v.
WILFRED DAVID VAZQUEZ AND VARSITY ENTERPRISES, INC., D/B/A BOWEN TRAVEL SERVICE, APPELLEES; GORDON SHIRAH, APPELLANT, V. WILFRED DAVID VAZQUEZ AND VARSITY ENTERPRISES, INC., D/B/A BOWEN TRAVEL SERVICE, APPELLEES
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.
The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a district court's decision to reverse convictions for second-degree murder and firearm offenses, finding that while severance of the firearm possession count was mandated due to prejudice from admitting a prior felony conviction, the district court erred in reversing the murder and firearm display convictions.
The court held that severance of the firearm possession count was mandated due to the prejudicial nature of admitting a prior felony conviction, but the district court erred in reversing the murder and firearm display convictions.
[1] Lost profits must be shown with a reasonable degree of certainty, based on proof of income and expenses for a reasonable period prior to the event causing the loss.
[2] An award of punitive damages is fatally defective if unsupported by an award of compensatory damages, whether actual or nominal.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVazquez was indicted for first-degree murder, firearm possession by a felon, and firearm display during a felony. He moved to sever the firearm posses…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Nominal Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Acting Chief Judge.
In these consolidated appeals, appellants Tennant and Shirah appeal the final judgment rendered in a libel action in favor of appellees. The judgment assessed damages as follows:
1. That the Plaintiff WILFRED DAVID VAZQUEZ recover from the Defendants RALPH TENNANT and GORDON SHIRAH the sum of $30,000.00 (compensatory);
2. That the Plaintiff VARSITY ENTERPRISES, INC. recover from the Defendants RALPH TENNANT and GORDON SHIRAH the sum of $30,000.00 (compensatory);
3. That the Plaintiffs WILFRED DAVID VAZQUEZ and VARSITY ENTERPRISES, INC. recover from RALPH TENNANT the sum of $25,000.00 (punitive);
4. That the Plaintiffs WILFRED
DAVID VAZQUEZ and VARSITY ENTERPRISES, INC. recover from the Defendant GORDON SHIRAH the sum of $25,000.00 . (punitive).
We have carefully considered the several points raised on appeal and conclude that the question of damages awarded Varsity Enterprises, Inc. (Varsity) is the only point on which the record shows reversible error. The only evidence presented to support Varsity’s claim for compensatory damages was that Varsity’s gross commissions decreased subsequent to the libel by appellants. Varsity was required to show its loss of profits with a reasonable degree of certainty, based on proof of income and expenses for a reasonable period of time be fore the libel occurred. In American Motorcycle Institute, Inc. v. Mitchell, 380 So. 2d 452, 453 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), the court reiterated the rule:
Here, plaintiffs damages necessarily were the result of lost profits. These must be shown with a reasonable degree of certainty, based on proof of income and expenses for a reasonable period of time prior to the breach. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Utility Mfg. Co., 122 Fla. 718, 166 So. 856 (1935). In this case plaintiff testified only as to annual gross incomes, omitting evidence as to the amount of operating expenses, even though it was clear that such expenses existed. This omission requires reversal of the compensatory damage award. Florida Ventilated Awning Co. v. Dickson, 67 So. 2d 215 (Fla.1953).
Punitive damages may not be awarded unless supported by an award of compensatory damages, either actual or nominal. In American Motorcycle Institute it is stated:
The punitive damage award for fraud is fatally defective because it is unsupported by an award of compensatory damages, either actual or nominal. An action for punitive damages cannot be maintained independently of an action for compensatory damages. McLain v. Pensacola Coach Corp., 152 Fla. 876, 13 So. 2d 221 (1943). These compensatory damages for the underlying breach of duty may be nominal as well as actual. Elyria-Lorain Broad. Co. v. National Com. Indus., Inc., 300 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); cert. dismissed, National Com. Indus., Inc. v. Elyria-Lorain Broad. Co., 337 So. 2d 809 (Fla.1976).
380 So. 2d at 453.
There is no evidence in the record of Varsity’s expenses as against its gross profits which do appear in the record. This lack of evidence necessitates the reversal of Varsity’s compensatory damage award. There being no compensatory damages legally proved for Varsity, the punitive damages must also fall. In view of the fact that the final judgment awards punitive damages to Vazquez and Varsity from each appellant, it is not possible to determine by reference to the judgment just what portion was awarded to Vazquez individually.
The portion of the final judgment which awards Vazquez compensatory damages against appellants is affirmed. The award of compensatory damages to Varsity against appellants is reversed. Punitive damages awarded to both Vazquez and Varsity against each appellant are reversed. We remand this cause for a new trial on damages only in order to determine what, if any, compensatory damages should be awarded Varsity and the amount of punitive damages to be awarded Vazquez. If Varsity proves compensatory damages, then the amount of punitive damages to be awarded Varsity shall be determined.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED.
GRIMES and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barnett Guthartz v. Lewis, 408 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…[*603] pany, 398 So. 2d 455 (Fla.2d DCA 1981); Eglin Federal Credit Union v. Curfman, 386 So. 2d 860 (Fla.lst DCA 1980); others have insisted that Lassiter did not obviate the need for at least a nominal damage award, see, e.g., Tennant v. Vazquez, 389 So. 2d 1183 (Fla.2d DCA 1980); American Motorcycle Institute, Inc. v. Mitchell, 380 So. 2d 452 (Fla.5th DCA 1980); Sonson v. Nelson, 357 So. 2d 747 (Fla.3d DCA 1978). Since an award of nominal damages is the functional equivalent of a finding of liability witho…
-
Brooks v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. & W. Elec. Co., Inc., 399 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…ecord does not support a finding of actual com [*4] pensatory damages and the jury did not make a finding of nominal damages, there is no compensatory damage basis in the record necessary to support the award of punitive damages. Tennant v. Vazquez, 389 So. 2d 1183 (Fla.2d DCA 1980); American Motorcycle Institute v. Mitchell, 380 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Sonson v. Nelson, 357 So. 2d 747 (Fla.3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 364 So. 2d 889 (Fla.1978), cert. denied, 364 So. 2d 891 (Fla.1978). See Lassitter v.…
-
Baro v. Se. First Nat'l Bank OF Miami Springs & Se. Banking Corp., 406 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…g Sheraton Corporation v. Stuart, 242 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970); Winn & Lovett Grocery Company v. Archer, [*534] 126 Fla. 308, 171 So. 214 (1936). Further, the effect of the jury verdict on liability rendered this point moot. Tennant v. Vazquez, 389 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); LeJuene Road Hospital, Incorporated v. Watson, 171 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); McLain v. Pensacola Coach Corporation, 152 Fla. 876, 13 So. 2d 221 (1943); 17 Fla.Jur.2d, Damages, § 114. Finally, the plaintiff tendered no writt…
Authorities Cited
- New Amsterdam Cas. Co. & C. E. Yocam v. Util. Battery Mfg. Co., 122 Fla. 718 (Fla. 1935)
- Gertrude McLAIN v. Pensacola Coach Corp., 152 Fla. 876 (Fla. 1943)
- Fla. Ventilated Awning Co., Inc. v. Dickson, 67 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 1953)
- Am. Motorcycle Inst., Inc. v. Mitchell, 380 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Elyria-Lorain Broad. Co. v. Nat'l Commc'ns Indus., Inc., 300 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)