FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO., APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD E. WALKER, KELLEY E. WALKER, JR., & KENNETH W. WALKER, 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.
Florida Power & Light appeals a punitive damages award in a trespass counterclaim arising from clearing operations on property it had not yet acquired. The court reverses the $45,000 punitive damages award, finding the trespass was merely a mistake without the requisite malice or recklessness to support punitive damages, though affirming $866 in compensatory damages.
The court holds that punitive damages are not warranted. Although Florida Power & Light knew it lacked the right to enter appellees' land and supervised the contractor, the evidence shows only that the trespass was a mistake. No evidence demonstrates that Florida Power & Light or its contractor acted with wantonness, actual malice, deliberation, gross negligence, or utter disregard of property rights—the standards necessary for punitive damages under Florida law.
[1] Punitive damages are not warranted absent evidence of wantonness, actual malice, deliberation, gross negligence, or utter disregard of property rights.
[2] A trespass resulting from a mistake, even with supervisory control, does not automatically entitle a party to punitive damages if precautions were taken to avoid the erro…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Even when viewed in the light most favorable to appellees, there is nothing in the record to show that Florida Power & Light or its contractor acted with wantoness, actual malice, deliberation, gross negligence, or utter disregard of appellees' property rights.”
Establishes the legal standard for punitive damages in trespass and the court's finding that the evidence does not meet this standard.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn April 1981, Florida Power & Light began clearing a 37.5-mile transmission line corridor, using a "leapfrogging" technique to work on acquired land …
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 Supervisory Control cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
In a condemnation suit brought against them by appellant, appellees filed a counterclaim for trespass. They were awarded $866 compensatory damages and $45,000 in punitive damages. Florida Power and Light appeals only the award of punitive damages. We reverse.
In April of 1981, Florida Power & Light began working on a 37.5 mile electricity transmission line in northern Nassau County. As it acquired necessary rights of way, the land was cleared by a contractor, Phillips & Jordan, Inc. Prior to the beginning of the clearing activities Florida Power & Light and Phillips & Jordan personnel met for a preconstruction conference. They discussed the fact that not all of the necessary land had been acquired, and therefore a “leapfrogging” technique would be utilized in order to do the clearing on the lands that had been acquired, while skipping those lands that had not yet been taken. In addition, Florida Power & Light had prepared a color coded map showing the property that had been acquired and that which had not. Appellees’ property was among that which had not. When the contractor began the actual clearing, Florida Power & Light had on-site supervisors who were available in the event problems or questions arose.
Before acquiring the right of way over appellees’ land, employees of Phillips & Jordan replaced three sections of appellees’ barbed wire fence with three gates. One of the gates was incorrectly placed and some of appellees’ cattle got out. However, they were rounded up in approximately one hour without loss or damage to the cattle.
Because Florida Power & Light knew it had no right to enter appellees’ land and because it exercised supervisory control over its contractor, appellees argue that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to award punitive damages. The evidence, however, shows only that the trespass was a mistake. Even when viewed in the light most favorable to appellees, there is nothing in the record to show that Florida Power & Light or its contractor acted with wantoness, actual malice, deliberation, gross negligence, or utter disregard of appellees’ property rights. Winn and Lovett Grocery Co. v. Archer, 126 Fla. 308, 171 So. 214 (1936).
In Florida Power and Light v. Scudder, 350 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), the court found that although Florida Power & Light had been careless in failing to ascertain the true owners of the property before erecting its power poles, the company’s conduct was “not the type of outrageous wrong which warrants imposition of punitive damages.” 350 So. 2d 110. In Scudder, the trespass was of a continuing nature because the company had actually installed the poles and lines before determining who owned the property. Here, the trespass was brief and appel-lees were adequately compensated for any actual damages. In addition, the evidence shows that Florida Power & Light had taken precautions to attempt to avoid a mistake of the kind which occurred here. The fact that a mistake did occur does not entitle appellees to punitive damages. We find the punitive damage award to be manifestly against the weight of the evidence. See Arab Termite and Pest Control v. Jenkins, 409 So. 2d 1039 (Fla.1982).
The punitive damage award is accordingly reversed; the judgment is affirmed in all other respects.
LARRY G. SMITH and JOANOS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Theodora Walsh v. Alfidi, 448 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…vidence that the defendant acted with malice, moral turpitude, wantonness, willfulness, or reckless indifference to the rights of others. Campbell v. Government Employees Insurance Co., 306 So. 2d 525 (Fla.1975); Florida Power & Light Co. v. Walker, 440 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 1st DCA, 1983); Florida Standard Jury Instruction 6.12 (1982). In Arab Termite & Pest Control of Florida, Inc. v. Jenkins, 409 So. 2d 1039 (Fla.1982), the Supreme Court defined the respective roles of the trial court and the jury regarding pun…
-
Kish v. McDONALD'S Corp., 564 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…permit punitive damages in trespass actions where after discovery of the trespass, the trespasser removes himself from the property. See eg., Clark v. J.W. Conner & Sons, Inc., 441 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Florida Power & Light Co. v. Walker, 440 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). [*1180] Appellants argue that the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial on the issue of punitive damages both as to amount and as to liability.1 We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in gr…
-
Manheimer v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 403 So. 3d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…ence demonstrates that a trespass was a mistake, there was no unreasonable delay in remedying the mistake and no damage resulted to the plaintiff, the trespass cannot serve as the basis for punitive damages. See Florida Power & Light Co. v. Walker, 440 So. 2d 659, 660 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (“The evidence, however, shows only that the trespass was a mistake. Even when viewed in the light most favorable to appellees, there is nothing in the record to show that Florida Power & Light or its contractor acted with…
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
- Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Archer, 126 Fla. 308 (Fla. 1936)
- Arab Termite & Pest Control OF Fla., Inc. v. Jenkins, 409 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 1982)
- THE Florida BAR v. Hollingsworth, 409 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 1982)
- Ralford Collins Dismucke, Jr. v. State, 350 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Dickens v. State, 350 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)