GEORGE BREWER, APPELLANT,
v.
SUN RAY DRUG CO. OF FLORIDA, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
In this malicious prosecution and abuse of process case, the trial court reduced a jury verdict from $27,000 ($25,000 compensatory + $2,000 punitive) to $12,000 ($10,000 compensatory + $2,000 punitive) by conditioning denial of a new trial on acceptance of a $15,000 remittitur. The appellate court affirmed, holding that trial courts have discretion to order remittiturs when jury verdicts are excessive and not supported by evidence.
The trial court did not err. Courts have discretion and responsibility to order remittiturs where verdicts are excessive and not substantiated by evidence, particularly in malicious prosecution cases where damages lack an exact measure. The court's reduction was justified where the plaintiff was given the choice between accepting the reduced award or proceeding to a new trial.
“Courts should be particularly reluctant to interfere with a just award of damages in an action for malicious prosecution, in that there can be no very exact measure of damages applied, nonetheless the Court has the discretion and the responsibility to order a remittitur where the verdict is excessive and not substantiated by the evidence.”
Establishes the court's approach to remittiturs in malicious prosecution cases—recognizing the difficulty in measuring damages while affirming the court's authority to correct excessive verdicts.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGeorge Brewer sued Sun Ray Drug Company for malicious prosecution and abuse of process after the company caused him to be arrested and charged with em…
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 Excessive Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from an order requiring a remittitur, or in the alternative granting a new trial, upon the issue of damages only in a suit for malicious prosecution and abuse of process. The plaintiff George Brewer sued the defendant Sun Ray Drug Company of Florida, Inc., for damages resulting from the defendant’s charge against the plaintiff of the crime of embezzlement. The plaintiff was arrested, placed in jail, released on $1,000 bail, and-some two months later the charge against him was dismissed by the . Justice of Peace. Thereafter this case was instituted and tried and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff of $25,000 damages, plus $2,000 punitive damages, thereupon the following order was entered:
“This cause coming on to be heard upon defendant’s motion for a directed verdict or in the alternative, a new trial and the Court having heard argument on said motion, considered the memo-randa furnished by counsel, the record and testimony in this case; and the Court being of the opinion that the jury acted within its sound discretion in deciding the question of liability adversely to the defendant and in awarding punitive damages in the amount of Two Thousand and 00/100 ($2,000.00) Dollars against the Defendant, but the Court being of the opinion that despite the jury’s wide latitude when questions of embarrassment, humiliation and mental anguish are in*370volved this Court cannot in good conscience approve an award of compensatory damages in this case in excess of Ten Thousand and 00/100 ($10,-000.00) Dollars. It is therefore
“Considered, ordered and adjudged as follows:
“1) That defendant’s motion for a directed verdict is hereby denied.
“2) That defendant’s alternative motion for a new trial is denied in the •event the plaintiff shall, within ten (10) days, file a remittitur in the amount of Fifteen Thousand and 00/100 ($15,->000.00) Dollars.
“3) That in the event the plaintiff shall fail to file such remittitur in the amount of Fifteen Thousand and 00/100 ($15,000.00) Dollars within ten (10) days, the motion for a new trial will he granted on the question of damages only.”
The sole question is stated as follows : “Did the Court err in entering the above Order requiring the plaintiff to suffer a remittitur of $15,000.00 or stand a new trial?” The plaintiff relies strongly on the case of Maiborne v. Kuntz, Fla., 56 So.2d 720, wherein the Supreme Court of Florida reversed the trial Judge, who had directed a remittitur of $9,000 to be taken by the plaintiff, the verdict being for $10,000. It is noted that this is 9/10 of the verdict, which is not a circumstance of this case. Courts should be particularly reluctant to interfere with a just award of damages in an action for malicious prosecution, in that there can be no very exact measure of damages applied, nonetheless the Court has the discretion and the responsibility to order a remittitur where the verdict is excessive and not substantiated by the evidence. In the case of Atlantic Coastline Railroad v. Moore, 135 Fla. 485, 181 So. 374, 186 So. 210, 216, the Supreme Court of Florida has given a concise statement of the law as to entering remittiturs, to-wit:
“This court has repeatedly entered remittiturs to correct excessive verdicts, but such procedure is warranted only in cases where there is a clear showing of misguided judgment in reaching the verdict, or where the proper elements that control the making of the verdict are not shown to have been present.”
A trial by jury in a Court of competent jurisdiction is the forum wherein persons may seek and recover adequate, full and just compensation for damages sustained, but it is not a forum in which one may spin the wheel of fortune and receive compensation which is excessive of adequate full and just recompense.
The record does not disclose that the trial judge abused his discretion or avoided his responsibility.
The order appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.
ALLEN, Acting Chief Judge, and SHANNON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
August L. Bobenhausen v. Cassat Ave. Mobile Homes, Inc., 344 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…Nelson, 229 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1969). We are aware that an order of the trial judge granting a remittitur is discretionary and may not be set aside on appeal unless an abuse of discretion is shown. E. g., Brewer v. Sun Ray Drug Co. of Florida, 105 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1958); Price v. Jordan, 115 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1959). Nevertheless we feel the rule stated by the Florida Supreme Court in Smith v. Jackson County, 134 Fla. 354, 183 So. 738 (1938), concerning the power of trial courts to order r…
-
Ferslew v. Relaford, 351 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…’s refusal to renew their lease; appellee appeals the denial of her motion for directed verdict. As to appellant’s claim, having considered the record we determine no abuse of discretion has been shown. E. g., Brewer v. Sun Ray Drug Company of Fla., 105 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1958); Price v. Jordan, 115 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1959). As to appellee’s cross-appeal, we also find no reversible error. We will, however, address two points raised by appellee. She first urges the lower court erred in denying her…
Authorities Cited
- Maiborne v. Kuntz, 56 So.2d 720 (Fla. 1952)
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Moore, 186 So. 210 (Fla. 1938)