KEVIN WHITE, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
BURGER KING CORPORATION, A CORPORATION FOR PROFIT LICENSED AND DOING BUSINESS IN FLORIDA, AND A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF THE PILLSBURY COMPANY, A MINNESOTA CORPORATION; CAMIAMI, INC., A CORPORATION FOR PROFIT LICENSED AND DOING BUSINESS IN FLORIDA; AND BIRMINGHAM FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA, APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS
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.
Kevin White appealed a judgment denying him compensatory and punitive damages for an assault by a security guard at a Burger King restaurant. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court erred by refusing jury instructions on apparent authority, excluding evidence of a prior incident, and failing to instruct on statutory public access requirements.
The appellate court held that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on apparent authority, which was an available theory of liability entitled to jury consideration. The court also held that the prior incident evidence was relevant and should have been admitted, particularly under the Mercury Motors standard for corporate punitive damages liability. The court further held that evidence of the corporate employer's hiring, training, supervision, and equipping practices, including the prior incident, was sufficient to submit the punitive damages issue to the jury. Finally, the court held that the appellant was entitled to a jury instruction on the public access statute.
[1] A plaintiff is entitled to a jury instruction on their theory of liability, and the refusal to provide such an instruction may require a new trial.
[2] Evidence of a prior incident at a business may be relevant to the liability of corporate employers for punitive damages.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“The appellant was entitled to an instruction on his theory of the case and the instructions given were wholly inadequate.”
Establishes that parties must receive jury instructions on their available theories of liability, particularly apparent authority
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKevin White was allegedly assaulted and battered with a billy club by a security guard employed at a Burger King restaurant. The assault occurred duri…
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 Assault And Battery cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a final judgment entered in a personal injury action wherein the appellant, Kevin White, sought compensatory and punitive damages as a result of an alleged assault and battery committed upon him with a billy club by a security guard employed at a Burger King restaurant. We reverse.
The parties have presented numerous issues by appeal and cross-appeal, only a few of which we will discuss. The main issue presented by White is the failure of the trial court to instruct the jury on his theory of liability against the Burger King Corporation predicated on apparent authority. The trial court refused to give an instruction defining or explaining the concept of apparent authority. We agree with White that this refusal was error and that such error requires a new trial on all issues as to Burger King’s liability. The appellant was entitled to an instruction on his theory of the case and the instructions given were wholly inadequate. See, e.g., Orlando Executive Park, Inc. v. Robbins, 433 So. 2d 491 (Fla.1983).
We also agree that the trial court erred in refusing to admit evidence of a prior incident at the same Burger King restaurant. This case was tried before the Supreme Court’s decision in Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So. 2d 545 (Fla.1981), clarifying the law as to the liability of a corporate employer for punitive damages. In our view evidence of the prior incident may be relevant to the liability of both alleged corporate employers involved herein. We disagree with the contention made on cross-appeal that the evidence of fault as to the security guard’s corporate employer, Camiami, Inc., was insufficient to support an award of punitive damages against that employer. As noted, this case was tried before the Mercury Motors decision requiring a showing of some fault on the part of the employer before punitive damages predicated on the employee’s misconduct may be assessed. In our view the evidence presented as to the corporate employer’s hiring, training, supervision and equipping of the security guard, including evidence of the prior incident involving the use of a billy club, is sufficient to support the submission of the punitive damage issue to the jury. On remand the appellant should be given an opportunity to amend his pleadings against both Camiami, Inc., and Burger King Corporation to conform to the requirements of Mercury Motors.
The trial court also refused to instruct the jury on a state statute and regulation mandating public access to toilet facilities on premises such as those involved herein. There is evidence that the assault alleged herein took place during a dispute over access to such facilities and we believe the appellant was entitled to an instruction on the statute in question.
For the reasons set out above we conclude that the appellant is entitled to a new trial on all issues. Although the errors discussed above do not necessarily vitiate the compensatory damage award entered against Camiami, Inc., we believe the justice of the cause requires a new trial on all issues. See, e.g., Baynard v. Liberman, 139 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962) and Jenkins v. Arab Termite and Pest Control of Florida, Inc., 422 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed with directions for further proceedings consistent herewith.
ANSTEAD and HURLEY, JJ., and MINER, CHARLES E., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Clark, 491 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…theory, where the evidence substantially supports the plaintiffs’ theory. Luster v. Moore, 78 So. 2d 87, 88 (Fla.1955); Wilson v. Florida Airlines, 449 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 456 So. 2d 1181 (Fla.1984); White v. Burger King Corp., 433 So. 2d 540, 541 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); City of Tamarac v. Garchar, 398 So. 2d 889, 895 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Further, Florida courts have upheld instructions which stated that violation of industry standards was evidence of negligence in a railroad crossing colli…
-
Brown v. Ford, 900 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…is not clear whether the evidentiary error discussed above necessarily vitiated the compensatory damage award entered against the defendants, we believe the proper remedy would be to require a new trial on all issues. See White v. Burger King Corp., 433 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); see also DuPuis v. 79th Street Hotel, Inc., 231 So. 2d 532, 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970) on reh’g (stating that “better practice and procedure requires that one jury determine both the compensatory and punitive damages”). But see [*65…
-
Wilson v. Fla. Airlines, Inc., 449 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…Wilsons correctly point out that they were entitled to a jury instruction on their theory of the case even though Florida Airlines offered evidence controverting that theory. Luster v. Moore, 78 So. 2d 87, 88 (Fla.1955); White v. Burger King Corp., 433 So. 2d 540, 541 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); City of Tamarac v. Garchar, 398 So. 2d 889, 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). A crucial element of their theory was that a violation of a county fire and safety ordinance, which protects a particular class of persons, is negligence p…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 1981)
- Orlando Executive Park, Inc. v. Robbins, 433 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 1983)
- Baynard v. Liberman, 139 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Jenkins v. Arab Termite & Pest Control OF Fla., Inc., 422 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)