HARRY WISHMAN, ELSIE R. WISHMAN, AND LEO WISHMAN, PETITIONERS,
v.
FOSTER AND CURRY INDUSTRIES, INC., GEORGE E. BUNNELL CORP., R. H. WRIGHT & SONS, INC., KEN C. PETERSON CONSTRUCTION CORP., BRANSFIELD & WHITE, INC., FLORIDA CORPORATIONS, AND WRIGHT CONTRACTING COMPANY, A GEORGIA CORPORATION, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, RESPONDENTS
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.
The petitioners appealed the trial court's order striking paragraph 4 of their trespass complaint and their demand for punitive damages. The court reversed, holding that the allegations sufficiently stated a claim for punitive damages under Florida law, though the court did not address whether the petitioners could ultimately prove those allegations at trial.
The allegations in paragraph 4 sufficiently allege facts that warrant and support a demand for punitive damages under Florida law. The court did not address whether the petitioners could ultimately prove the allegations or whether the claim should be submitted to a jury.
“Under the rule announced in the above cases, the allegations and claim as to punitive damages appear sufficient. Whether the petitioners can prove the allegations or whether the same should be submitted to a jury on the question of punitive damages under the evidence to be adduced, is not before us.”
Establishes that the court's role is limited to reviewing the legal sufficiency of the pleading, not the proof or jury submission
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioners owned property upon which the respondents allegedly committed trespass, entry, and damage. The petitioners' complaint alleged that the…
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 Claim For Punitive Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
The petitioners here were plaintiffs below and brought an action in damages for trespass allegedly committed by the respondents upon the petitioners’ property. Paragraph 4 of the petitioners’ complaint alleged as follows:
“4. The Defendants and/or each of them, jointly and/or severally, did commit the described acts of entry upon and damage to the described property unlawfully and willfully, without regard to the property rights of the plaintiffs and/or with full knowledge, actual or constructive, that they had no right so to do, and/or did continue the described acts of trespass, waste and damage after demand to cease and desist and/or after being actually advised of Plaintiffs’ rights.”
These allegations contained in the above paragraph were followed by petitioners’ claim for damages, both compensatory and punitive. The respondent Wright Contracting Company among other things moved to strike paragraph 4 of the complaint and petitioners’ demand for punitive damages on the ground that such allegations were insufficient as a matter of law. After hearing, the trial judge granted the motion, struck paragraph 4 of the complaint, the demand for punitive damages, and, sua sponte, transferred the cause to the Civil Court of Record of Dade County, Florida.
The petitioners here seek a review and quashal of the order striking the questioned paragraph of the complaint, the demand for punitive damages and the transfer of the cause to the civil court of record.
*279The petition is g-ranted and the questioned order is quashed upon the authority of the rule stated in Hutchinson v. Courtney, 86 Fla. 556, 98 So. 582, and Griffith v. Shamrock Village, Fla.1957, 94 So.2d 854. Under the rule announced in the above cases, the allegations and claim as to punitive damages appear sufficient. Whether the petitioners can prove the allegations or whether the same should be submitted to a jury on the question of punitive damages under the evidence to be adduced, is not before us. We merely determine that the allegations of paragraph 4 of the complaint sufficiently allege facts that warrant and support a demand for punitive damages.
Accordingly, the order striking paragraph 4 of the petitioners’ complaint, the demand for punitive damages, and transferring the cause of action to the civil court of record, is quashed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mendoza v. John J. Farrell, M.D., 199 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…., F.S.A. Tantillo v. Miliman, Fla.1965, 87 So. 2d 413; Kautzman v. Bandler, Fla.App.1960, 118 So. 2d 256; Easley v. Garden Sanctuary, Inc., Fla.App.1960, 120 So. 2d 59, 78 A.L.R.2d 1199; Wishman v. Foster and Curry In dustries, Inc., Fla.App. 1962, 145 So. 2d 278, 279. The petitioner Rose G. Mendoza filed her amended complaint against the respondents John J. Farrell, M.D., and Nancy Johnson, for alleged trespass and assault and for personal injuries resulting therefrom, seeking compensatory and punitive dam…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Griffith v. Shamrock Vill., Inc., 94 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 1957)
- Hutchinson v. Courtney, 86 Fla. 556 (Fla. 1923)