JOSE CANSECO, JR., AND OSWALDO CANSECO, APPELLANTS,
v.
ALAN CHEEKS AND CHRISTIAN PRESLEY, 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.
Former professional baseball players Jose and Oswaldo Canseco appealed a judgment for battery, conspiracy to commit battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress after they attacked two conference attendees at a Miami Beach nightclub without provocation. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the Cansecos' conduct satisfied all tort claims and supporting the award of compensatory and punitive damages.
The court affirmed the trial court's judgment on all issues: medical bills may be admitted without expert testimony, the Cansecos' unprovoked violent attack satisfied an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, punitive damages were justified because intentional battery provides the requisite proof of malice, and joint and several liability was properly imposed.
[1] Medical bills are admissible in a tort action without physician authentication.
[2] Unprovoked physical assault, including choking and punching, can satisfy the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Without any provocation, Jose attacked Presley, shoving him against a column, lifting him by the throat, and choking him.”
Establishes the unprovoked nature and severity of the assault, which supports the trial court's finding of battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn Halloween night, Jose and Oswaldo Canseco, both former professional baseball players and martial art experts, attacked two men at a Miami Beach nig…
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 Malice cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Jose Canseco, Jr., (“Jose”), and Oswaldo Canseco, (“Ozzie”), (collectively “the Cansecos”), appeal the trial court’s order of final judgment in favor of Christian Presley, (“Presley”), and Alan Cheeks, (“Cheeks”), in a tort action. We affirm.
On Halloween night, the Cansecos, who are former professional baseball players and martial art experts, went to a Miami Beach nightclub costumed as modern-day vampires and leather-clad warriors. Cheeks, a scientist and accomplished woodwind musician, and Presley, an oncology drug researcher, were in Miami Beach for a conference and ended up at the same nightclub.
Without any provocation, Jose attacked Presley, shoving him against a column, lifting him by the throat, and choking him. Jose punched Presley several times before proceeding to punch Cheeks. A bouncer tried to stop the attack, but Jose continued. As a result, Presley had a broken nose, and Cheeks suffered lip injuries that hindered his ability to play his saxophone.
Presley and Cheeks sued the Cansecos for battery, conspiracy to commit battery, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress, (“IIED”). The jury found in favor of Presley and Cheeks and awarded compensatory and punitive damages. The trial judge remitted part of the punitive damages award, and then ordered the jury to assign liability jointly and severally. The Cansecos appeal.
The Cansecos first contend that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting medical bills without physician authentication. We reject the contention that it is necessary to introduce expert testimony as a precondition to admitting the medical bills. See Garrett v. Morris Kirschman & Co., 336 So. 2d 566, 571 (Fla.1976); A.J. v. State, 677 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Invin v. Blake, 589 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).
Second, the Cansecos argue that the trial court erred in finding the Canse-cos liable for IIED. We believe the Canse-cos’ conduct satisfies an IIED claim. See LeGrande v. Emmanuel, 889 So. 2d 991, 994 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Johnson v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 695 So. 2d 927, 929-930 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
Next, the Cansecos contend that the trial court erred in awarding punitive damages. We disagree because intentional battery supplies the requisite proof of malice, justifying a punitive damages award. See Brown v. Ford, 900 So. 2d 646, 648 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Parsons v. Weinstein Enters., Inc., 387 So. 2d 1044, 1046 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
Finally, the Cansecos argue that the trial court erred in holding the Cansecos jointly and severally liable. We disagree. See Barton Protective Servs., Inc. v. Faber, 745 So. 2d 968, 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment in favor of Presley and Cheeks.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United Automobile v. New Med. Grp. (11th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2015)
-
United Automobile v. New Med. Grp. Corrected (11th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2020)
-
United Automobile v. New Med. Grp. 2nd Corrected (11th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2020)
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
- Garrett v. Morris Kirschman & Co., Inc., 336 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1976)
- Barton Protective Servs., Inc. v. Faber, 745 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- A.J. v. State, 677 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Devil LeGRANDE and Eliamise LeGrande v. Emmanuel, 889 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
- Parsons v. Weinstein Enters., Inc., 387 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Irwin v. Blake, 589 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Johnson v. State of Fla's. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 695 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Laureen A. Grdinich v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 695 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Brown v. Ford, 900 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)