PREVENTIVE SECURITY AND INVESTIGATORS, INC., AND KENT INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
WILLIAM TROGE, APPELLEE
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 court held that there was sufficient evidence to sustain a punitive damage award and that other points raised were not preserved for appeal.
A security guard fell asleep while on duty, allowing an intruder to severely beat the plaintiff. The defendant security company provided no training a…
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 Negligence Action cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a final judgment entered upon a jury verdict awarding compensatory and punitive damages in a negli gence action. The defendant and its insurer appeal raising a variety of points, none of which constitutes reversible error. The central contention presented is that insufficient evidence was presented below to sustain a punitive damage award and that, accordingly, the trial court erred in denying the defendants’ motion for a directed verdict on the punitive damage claim. We cannot agree.
The record reveals sufficient evidence upon which the jury could have reasonably found that the guard for the defendant security company acted with willful and wanton disregard for the rights of the plaintiff. While on the job and positioned where he could not see the boats he was supposed to keep watch over, the guard fell asleep in his car, with the engine running and the windows up, at a time when the plaintiff was being severely beaten on a boat by an intruder. See e.g., Johnson v. State, 148 Fla. 510, 4 So. 2d 671 (1941). Moreover, the record contains sufficient evidence upon which a jury could have reasonably found that the defendant security company, as the guard’s employer, was guilty of some fault in this incident which foresee-ably contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries. The defendant security company provided no training whatever for its guard and allowed him to stay in his car while on duty in a position where he could not see the boats he was guarding. See e.g., Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So. 2d 545 (Fla.1981).
We have also considered the other points raised upon this appeal by the defendants but do not deem any of them adequately preserved for appellate review. The final judgment under review is, in all respects,
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McARTHUR Dairy, Inc. v. Original Kielbs, Inc., 481 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…ided further that the management of the corporation was guilty of some fault which foreseeably contributed to the plaintiff’s injury. See Zayre Corp. v. Martinez, 439 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Preventive Security & Investigators, Inc. v. Troge, 423 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); compare Life Insurance Co. of North America v. Del Aguila, 417 So. 2d at 652-53; see also Bankers Multiple Line Insurance Co. v. Farish, 464 So. 2d 530, 533 (Fla.1985); accord Winn-Dixie v. Robinson, 472 So. 2d at 724. A corporat…
-
Zayre Corp. v. Rigoberto Martinez, 439 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…liable for punitive damages under Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So. 2d 545 (Fla.1981) only if the jury concludes that it negligently failed properly to train the guards in question. Preventive Security and Investigators, Inc. v. Troge, 423 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). This issue was fairly presented by the testimony admitted without objection below but was not submitted to the jury on the erroneous ground that it had not been alleged in the complaint.1 See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.190(b); Di Teodoro v.…
Authorities Cited
- Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 1981)
- Johnson v. State, 148 Fla. 510 (Fla. 1941)