IDY CORPORATION, D/B/A CRAZY HORSE SALOON AND KENT INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
PENELOPE FENTON, 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.
IDY Corporation appeals a directed verdict on liability in an assault and battery case brought by Penelope Fenton. The Florida appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court improperly directed a verdict on the first assault because the defendant presented evidence disputing the tortious nature of that assault, making liability a jury question.
The directed verdict was improper because the defendant presented evidence disputing the tortious nature of the first alleged assault. The question of whether defendant's employees used reasonable force to eject the plaintiff was a jury question that should not have been removed from the jury's consideration.
[1] A trial court may direct a verdict only when there is an absence of evidence or reasonable inferences to support the position of the nonmoving party.
[2] A directed verdict is improper when the issue of whether force used to eject a person was reasonable is a question of fact for the jury.
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“A trial court may properly direct a verdict only in the absence of any evidence or reasonable inferences supportive of the position of the nonmoving party.”
Establishes the standard for when a directed verdict is proper, which is central to the court's analysis.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Penelope Fenton brought suit against Idy Corp., d/b/a Crazy Horse Saloon, and its insurance company for injuries resulting from two separate…
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 Trespasser Status cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff brought suit against Idy Corp., d/b/a Crazy Horse Saloon and its insurance company seeking compensatory and punitive damages.1 She alleged injury resulting from two separate acts of assault and battery committed on the same evening by Crazy Horse employees. The trial court directed a verdict on the issue of liability as to both alleged assault incidents. The jury subsequently awarded $5,000 compensatory damages and $50,000 punitive damages to the plaintiff. There was no apportionment of damages as between the two alleged assaults. Idy Corp. appeals, asserting as its main contention that the trial court erred in directing a verdict in reference to the first assault.
A trial court may properly direct a verdict only in the absence of any evidence or reasonable inferences supportive of the position of the nonmoving party. Hendricks v. Dailey, 208 So. 2d 101 (Fla.1968); Dandashi v. Fine, 397 So. 2d 442 (Fla.3d DCA 1981). Although defendant offered no testimony at trial concerning the second assault, it did offer some evidence to dispute the tortious nature of the first alleged assault. Several witnesses gave testimony tending to prove that plaintiff became a trespasser by creating a disturbance and then refusing to leave the premises after being asked. The issue of whether defendant’s employees used reasonable force to eject the plaintiff was, therefore, a jury question. The directed verdict was improper.2
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
. Two different attorneys appeared on behalf of the defendant, Idy Corp., as its insurer would defend only against the claim for compensatory damages. Idy Corp. retained independent counsel to represent it against the punitive damage claim. Idy Corp. asserts as error the trial court’s refusal to allow both attorneys to participate in the first day of a two-day trial. Our reversal on other grounds renders this issue moot. On retrial, both attorneys shall be given a full opportunity to participate.
. Defendant’s claim that the punitive damage award was excessive need not be reached in light of our reversal and remand for a new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. M. David Sims, M.D., 538 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…, it should be submitted to the jury as questions of fact and not be taken away to be passed upon by the judge as questions of law. Quarrel v. Minervini, 510 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), rev. denied, 519 So. 2d 987 (Fla.1988); Idy Corp. v. Fenton, 454 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Dandashi v. Fine, 397 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), (citing Hendricks v. Dailey, 208 So. 2d 101 (Fla.1968)); Behar v. Root, 393 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Laird v. Potter, 367 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 378 So.…
-
Willis Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Luckey, 466 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…y, 266 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); Garris v. Robeison, 146 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962). National Car Rental System, Inc. v. Bostic, 423 So. 2d 915, 917 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), review denied, 436 So. 2d 97, 99 (Fla.1983). See Idy Corp. v. Fenton, 454 So. 2d 13, 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Vecta Contract, Inc. v. Lynch, 444 So. 2d 1093, 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 453 So. 2d 44 (Fla.1984). Unrebutted testimony established that Luckey did not request insurance coverage for the contents of his new apartme…
-
Intervisa v. Barnett Bank OF S. Fla., N.A., 590 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Hendricks v. Dailey, 208 So. 2d 101 (Fla.1968); Diamond v. Rosenfeld, 511 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), review denied 520 So. 2d 586 (Fla.1988); Idy Corporation v. Fenton, 454 So. 2d 13 (Fla.3d DCA 1984); Cirou v. Basler, 432 So. 2d 628 (Fla.3d DCA 1983); § 620.125, Fla.Stat. (1989).…
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
- Hendricks v. Dailey, 208 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 1968)
- Salem Dandashi and Mansham Dandashi v. Fine, 397 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)