RONALD P. JAWORSKI, APPELLANT,
v.
DEWOODY & HAMNER, P.A., 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 the trial court erred by ordering a new trial on liability for libel, and the consequence of the fundamental error should be a new trial on damages only.
Appellant sued for breach of an employment contract's non-compete provision. Appellant also counterclaimed for libel, winning a jury verdict. The tria…
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 New Trial On Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
WALDEN, Judge.
This is an action for breach of an employment contract provision, i.e., a covenant not to compete. It involves certified public accountants with Appellant, Jaworski, being the Defendant in the trial court.
Appellant presents seven (7) points for consideration. With the exception of Point 6, Jaworski has failed to demonstrate reversible error. We, therefore, affirm as to them.
Point 6 states:
“The trial court erred as a matter of law by including a conditional order of new trial or an order of remittitur regarding the appellant’s counterclaim for libel in the final judgment.”
A jury trial was held on Jaworski’s counterclaim for libel. The verdict was in favor of Jaworski. It was in the sum of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) against De-Woody and Hamner, P.A., and in the sum of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) against Hamner, individually. It was not joint and several and, necessarily, the verdicts would have to be in equal amounts since the theory of the case against De-Woody and Hamner, P.A. was predicated solely upon the doctrine of respondent superior. The trial court correctly noted in the final judgment that such verdicts constituted fundamental error, citing Keyes Co. v. Sens, 382 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1980). However, the trial court went on to order a remittitur which, if Jaworski declined it, would result in a new trial on both liability and damages. We hold, based on Keyes Co. v. Sens, supra, that this treatment by the trial court in ordering a new trial on liability, constituted error and that the consequence of the mentioned fundamental error should be a new trial on the issue of compensatory and punitive damages only.
The judgment which provides a new trial as to liability and damages, as concerns Jaworski’s counterclaim for libel, is reversed to the degree that it provides a new trial as to liability.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
DOWNEY and LETTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zambrano v. Jegadees D. Devanesan, M.D., 484 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…t the evidence as to both liability and damages is inextricably intertwined, a new trial on both issues is not warranted. See Smith v. Telophase National Cremation Society, Inc., 471 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Jaworski v. DeWoody & Hamner, P.A., 448 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 456 So. 2d 1181 (Fla.1984). The record in this case is devoid of such indicia and, consequently, a new trial should be limited to the issue of damages alone. In summary, we affirm the remittitur of compensatory damage…
Authorities Cited
- The Keyes Co. v. Sens, 382 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)