CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY M. NYE, 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.
The appellate court affirmed a jury verdict awarding damages to a plaintiff who alleged assault, battery, and false imprisonment by city police officers. The court held the city liable under respondeat superior, rejecting the city's argument that it was not liable for intentional torts of its officers.
Yes, a municipality is liable for the intentional torts of its police officers under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The court found no reversible error in the jury instructions or the denial of a mistrial.
“that a municipality was liable for the intentional torts of its police officers under the doctrine of respondeat superior.”
Establishes the legal principle for municipal liability for police officer torts.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff sued the City of Miami Beach for damages resulting from an alleged assault, battery, and false imprisonment by city police officers. A j…
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 appeal is from a final judgment based upon a jury verdict in favor of the appellee-plaintiff. The action was commenced for the recovery of damages for an alleged assault and battery and false imprisonment suffered by the appellee at the hands of police officers of the City of Miami Beach.
The main grounds of the appellant’s arguments for reversal of the judgment appealed are (1) that the city is not liable for the intentional torts of its police officers; (2) that the court erred in failing to give certain instructions requested by the appellant; and (3) that the verdict is grossly excessive and was occasioned by the trial judge’s failure to grant a mistrial for certain prejudicial statements made by appel-lee’s counsel during the course of the trial.
The first ground has been answered adverse to appellant by the decision of this court in Simpson v. City of Miami, Fla.App.1963, 155 So.2d 829, wherein it was concluded that a municipality was liable for the intentional torts of its police officers under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
*206The other grounds raised by appellant have been duly considered in the light of the record on appeal. We fail to find wherein reversible error was made to appear.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The City OF Miami Beach v. NYE, 172 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 1965)…By petition for a writ of certiorari we are-requested to review a decision of the Court of Appeal, Third District because of an alleged conflict on the same point of law with. [*439] a decision of another Court of Appeal. City of Miami Beach v. Nye, 156 So. 2d 205. The District Court here affirmed a judgment in the trial court on the authority of its own decision in Simpson v. City of Miami, et al., Fla.App., 155 So. 2d 829. It is contended that because of its reliance upon Simpson the instant decision conf…
Authorities Cited
- Roce Simpson v. City OF Miami, 155 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)