RALPH B. WILSON, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
N. J. LEONARD, 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.
Ralph Wilson was held liable for $7,500 in damages after his automobile collided with N.J. Leonard's carriage. The Florida Supreme Court reversed and awarded a new trial because the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on punitive damages when no evidence supported an award of exemplary damages.
The erroneous instruction on punitive damages requires reversal. Because no evidence supported punitive damages and the verdict amount suggests the erroneous charge may have influenced the jury's damage calculation, the judgment must be reversed and a new trial awarded.
“While actionable negligence appears, there is no evidence upon which to base punitive damages, therefore a charge upon punitive damages should not have been given.”
Establishes the core holding that without evidentiary support for punitive damages, the jury instruction on exemplary damages was erroneous.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilson's automobile collided with Leonard's carriage on a public highway, injuring Leonard. The trial court found Wilson negligent in operating his ve…
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 Reckless Indifference cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
Leonard recovered, a judgment for $7,500.00 against Wilson for personal injuries sustained by reason of the negligence of Wilson in running his automobile against Leonard’s carriage in which Leonard was riding on a public highway. While actionable negligence appears, there is no evidence upon which to base punitive damages, therefore a charge upon punitive damages should not have been given. St. Petersburg & Gulf Railway Co. v. Van Smith, decided, at this term.
The court gave the following charge: “If you find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant drove the automobile at the time of the collision and the same was driven by him with a reckless indifference to the rights of the plaintiff and a grossly careless disregard of the safety of the plaintiff, then the law holds the defendant to the same responsibility as if the offense was intentional, and you are then permitted to add exemplary to compensatory damages.”
It is contended that this charge was not duly excepted to, but the bill of exceptions states that “the defendant asked the court to note his exceptions to the giving of these charges,” and that the court “announced that exceptions would be noted to the giving of these charges.” In view of the practice of the court as stated in the bill of exceptions that upon a statement of counsel that they “want to except to these charges,” the court then “writes on each and every charge separately the fact that counsel excepts,” it is assumed that the exceptions as made to the charges were to' them severally.
The quoted charge that was given being erroneous, and as the amount of the verdict indicates that the erroneous charge may probably have influenced the jury in making their finding of damages, the judgment will be reversed and a new trial awarded.
All concur, except Cockrell, J., absent on account of sickness.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Archer, 126 Fla. 308 (Fla. 1936)…y 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 be said that such error was altogether harmless merely because the jury might have legitimately found the same $1,250.00 verdict as pure compensation…
-
Lilly v. Bronson, 129 Fla. 675 (Fla. 1937)…8, 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 County when the seizure was made and then taken b…