ST. PETERSBURG & GULF RAILWAY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
S. VAN SMITH, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
St. Petersburg & Gulf Railway Company appeals a judgment for personal injuries and property damage arising from a collision involving a street railway car. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the judgment because the trial court erred by instructing the jury on punitive damages when no evidence supported such an award.
The court held that it is error to charge the jury on punitive damages when the case does not authorize such damages. When liability is not clearly established and the amount awarded appears excessive relative to compensatory damages shown, the judgment must be reversed and a new trial granted.
“Where punitive damages are not authorized by the case made, it is error to charge the jury upon the theory that punitive damages may be involved in the finding.”
Establishes the core legal principle that instructing on punitive damages without evidentiary support constitutes reversible error.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceS. Van Smith obtained a judgment of $1,000.00 against St. Petersburg & Gulf Railway Company for personal injuries and damage to a mule and wagon susta…
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 Gross Carelessness cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
The defendant in error obtained a judgment for $1,000.00 against the railway company for personal injuries and for injury to a mule and wagon received in a collision on the defendant’s street railway track, and the defendant took writ of error. A number of errors are assigned and argued, but it is necessary to discuss only one. There is no evidence which would warrant the infliction of punitive damages, yet the court charged the jury that if they find the “collision resulted from the gross carelessness and negligence on the part of the defendant’s servants and employees in propelling and operating the said street car, you should find for the plaintiff in such sum as you may find from the evidence would be sufficient to compensate him for the damages occasioned to him by reason of such collision, and in addition thereto, such further sum, not altogether in excess of five thousand dollars, as punitive damages that you may find from the evidence to be reasonable and impose upon the defendant as a penalty. Before you can find/ punitive damages, however, you must find that the degree of negligence was so gross and flagrant in its character as to evince a reckless disregard of human life or the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or that there was such an entire want of care which would raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or grossly careless disregard of the safety and welfare of the public, or that reckless indifference to the rights of others which is equivalent to an intentional violation.”
The statute provides that “a railroad company shall be liable for any damage done to persons, stock or other property, by the running of the locomotives, or cars or other machinery of such company.” §3148 Gen. Stats. 1906, §3148 Florida Compiled Laws 1914.
Where punitive damages are not authorized by the case made, it is error to charge the jury upon the theory that punitive damages may be involved in the finding. Florida East Coast R. Co. v. Schumacher, 63 Fla. 137, 57 South. Rep. 603; Dowling Lumber Co. v. King, 62 Fla. 151, 57 South. Rep. 337. For such an error the judgment will be reversed when the liability of the defendant is not clearly established and the amount awarded is apparently in excess of just compensation for the injury and loss shown to have been sustained. Consolidated Grocery Co. v. Allman, 59 Fla. 230, 51 South. Rep. 928; Jacksonville Electric Co. v. Dillon, 67 Fla. 114, 64 South. Rep. 669.
The judgment is reversed and a new trial awarded.
All concur, except Cockrell, J., absent by reason of sickness.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Archer, 126 Fla. 308 (Fla. 1936)…drawn from the jury at defendant’s request its instruction that authorized the jury to inflict punitive or exemplary damages in addition to compensatory damages, and its refusal to do so was unauthorized. See: St. Petersburg & Gulf Ry. Co. v. Smith, 71 Fla. 64, 70 Sou. Rep. 940. It was accordingly reversible error to charge upon the subject of exemplary damages on the case made. Wilson v. Leonard, 71 Fla. 66, 70 Sou. Rep. 841; St. Johns Electric Co. v. Lawler, 90 Fla. 188, 105 Sou. Rep. 818. And it cannot…
-
Lilly v. Bronson, 129 Fla. 675 (Fla. 1937)…o F. E. C. Ry. Co. v. McRoberts, 111 Fla. 278, 149 Sou. 631. So in this case it was reversible error for the court to charge the jury upon the theory that there was a basis for the recovery of punitive damages. St. Petersburg & G. Ry. Co. v. Smith, 71 Fla. 64, 70 Sou. 940; Wilson v. Leonard, 71 Fla. 66, 70 Sou. 841. Question Three presents the same contention as is presented in Question Two. The fourth question presents the contention that because the boat and seine, or net, may have been in Polk Count…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. E. Coast R.R. Co. v. Effie W. Schumacher and James M. Schumacher, 63 Fla. 137 (Fla. 1912)
- Dowling Lumber Co. v. King, 62 Fla. 151 (Fla. 1911)
- Jacksonville Elec. Co. v. Dillon, 67 Fla. 114 (Fla. 1914)
- Consol. Grocery Co. v. Allman, 59 Fla. 230 (Fla. 1910)