HARRY SINNAMON, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF CHARLES ANDREW DOTY, DECEASED, PETITIONER,
v.
MAYNARD GRADY FOWLKES, JR., RESPONDENT
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.
Harry Sinnamon, as administrator of a deceased's estate, sought review of a District Court of Appeal decision that reversed a jury verdict awarding $4,000 in punitive damages under Florida's Survival of Action Statute. The Florida Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari because the petitioner failed to demonstrate the required direct conflict with prior Supreme Court precedent necessary for review.
The Florida Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari, holding that petitioner failed to establish the required direct conflict with prior Supreme Court decisions necessary to invoke the Court's jurisdiction for review. The Court found that prior cases citing damages for mental pain and anguish involved compensatory damages, not punitive damages, and thus did not create a direct conflict with the District Court's decision.
“some substantial actual or compensatory damages must be shown as a predicate for allowance of punitive damages”
States the legal rule applied by the District Court of Appeal that required reversal of the punitive damages award
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSinnamon, as administrator of Charles Andrew Doty's estate, obtained a jury verdict for damages under the Survival of Action Statute after the trial c…
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 Special Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner seeks to obtain review of a decision of the District Court of Appeal which reversed a judgment of the Circuit Court for Dade County entered on a verdict for plaintiff, petitioner in .this Court and appellee below, including a $4,000 punitive damage award.
The verdict was returned in an action by petitioner, as administrator of the estate of a deceased, for damages under the Survival of Action Statute, F.S., Sec. 45.11, F.S.A. No question is raised at any point relative to damages awarded in the companion action under F.S., Sec. 768.01, .02, F.S.A., to recover for wrongful death. The case was presented to the jury on instructions that amounted to a directed verdict for plaintiff on the issue of liability. The court further charged the jury that there was “no evidentiary basis for the recovery * * * of any compensatory damages under * * * Section 45.11,” but permitted the allowance of punitive damages in that action. As above stated, the verdict returned did include $4,000 attributable only to. an award of punitive damages under the survival statute.
The district court applied the rule of law that some substantial actual or compensatory damages must be shown as a predicate for allowance of punitive damages, and reversed the judgment upon that point. In taking this position the court relied upon an earlier opinion of this Court as indicating sanction of the rule. McLain v. Pensacola Coach Corporation, 152 Fla. 876, 13 So.2d 221.
In the instant proceeding the petitioner necessarily proceeds under that provision of amended Article V of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A., authorizing review by certiorari in this Court of “any decision of a district court of appeal * * * that is in direct conflict with a decision of another district court of appeal or of the Supreme Court on the same point of law * * and the corresponding provision of Rule 2.1 a(5) (b) of the Florida Appellate Rules. The only ground presented by petitioner for issuance of the writ under this section lies in an alleged conflict between the decision in the instant *377case and the doctrine inherent in certain opinions of this Court to the effect that an element of malice in intentional torts may support recovery of damages for mental pain and anguish unconnected with physical injury. Kirksey v. Jernigan, Fla. 1950, 45 So.2d 188, 17 A.L.R.2d 766; Crane v. Loftin, Fla.1954, 70 So.2d 574. Cf., as to award of damages for libel or slander per se without proof of special injury, Ross v. Gore, Fla.1950, 48 So.2d 412; Campbell v. Jacksonville Kennel Club, Fla. 1953, 66 So.2d 495; Hartley & Parker v. Copeland, Fla.1951, 51 So.2d 789; Piplack v. Mueller, 97 Fla. 440, 121 So. 459; Layne v. Tribune Co., 108 Fla. 177, 146 So. 234, 86 A.L.R. 466; Harriss v. Metropolis Co., 118 Fla. 825, 160 So. 205; Johnson v. Finance Acceptance Co. of Ga., 118 Fla. 397, 159 So. 364.
But whatever the language used, even a cursory examination of the cited cases reveals that damages referred to were in all instances compensatory in nature, rather than punitive or exemplary. Vol. 7, Fla. Law and Practice, Damages, Sec. 18. Obviously, then, their rationale is not in “direct conflict” with the decision of the court below so as to warrant review by certiorari under the above provision.
Without regard to the propriety •of the rule of law applied by the district court, or the strength of the decision upon which the court relied (points upon which we do not rule because not necessary to the disposition of this proceeding), the writ must be denied, with the observation, again, that “under the constitutional plan the powers of this Court to review decisions of the district courts of appeal are limited and proscribed.” Diamond Berk Insurance Agency, Inc., v. Goldstein, Fla., 100 So.2d 420, 421.
Certiorari denied.
TERRELL, C. J., and HOBSON, ROBERTS and THORNAL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ansin v. Thurston, 101 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 1958)…that under the constitutional plan the powers of this Court to review decisions of the district courts of appeal are limited and strictly prescribed. Diamond Berk Insurance Agency, Inc., v. Goldstein, Fla., 100 So. 2d 420; Sinnamon v. Fowlkes, Fla., 101 So. 2d 375. It was never intended that the district courts of appeal should be intermediate courts. The revision and modernization of the Florida judicial system at the appellate level was prompted by the great volume of cases reaching the Supreme Court and th…
-
Jenkins v. State, 385 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 1980)…that under the constitutional plan the powers of this Court to review decisions of the district courts of appeal are limited and strictly prescribed. Diamond Berk Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Goldstein, Fla., 100 So. 2d 420; Sinnamon v. Fowlkes, Fla., 101 So. 2d 375. It was never intended that the district courts of appeal should be intermediate courts. The revision and modernization of the Florida judicial system at the appellate level was prompted by the great volume of eases reaching the Supreme Court and th…
-
Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Walters, 246 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 1971)…s of this and the District Courts of Appeal, not to correct erroneous decisions of the latter. Florida Power & Light Co. v. Bell, 122 So. 2d 611; Ansin v. Thurston, Fla., 101 So. 2d 808; Lake v. Lake, Fla., 103 So. 2d 639; Sinnamon v. Fowlkes, Fla., 101 So. 2d 375, and similar decisions. I would quash the writ as having been improvidently issued for lack of jurisdiction.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Kirksey v. Jernigan, 45 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 1950)
- Layne v. The Tribune Co., 108 Fla. 177 (Fla. 1933)
- Ross v. Gore, 48 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 1950)
- Gertrude McLAIN v. Pensacola Coach Corp., 152 Fla. 876 (Fla. 1943)
- Campbell v. Jacksonville Kennel Club, Inc., 66 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1953)
- Crane v. Loftin, 70 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 1954)
- Hartley & Parker v. Copeland, 51 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 1951)
- Johnson v. Fin. Acceptance Co. of Ga., 118 Fla. 397 (Fla. 1935)
- Piplack v. Mueller, 97 Fla. 440 (Fla. 1929)
- Blanton M. Harriss v. The Metropolis Co., 118 Fla. 825 (Fla. 1935)