DORAL COUNTRY CLUB, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND HERMAN KASKEL, APPELLANTS,
v.
LINDGREN PLUMBING COMPANY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1965-05-25
No. 64-667
Before CARROLL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.
175 So. 2d 570 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1965) Caution
Cited by 59 cases

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.

Synopsis

In this conversion action, the Florida appellate court reduced compensatory damages from $20,186.20 to $8,488.51 (the proved market value of converted property) and reversed the trial court's directed verdict against punitive damages, holding that sufficient evidence of aggravation required jury consideration of punitive damages.

Holding

The compensatory damages judgment is reduced to $8,488.51 (the proved market value of the converted property). The directed verdict against punitive damages is reversed and the case is remanded for jury determination, as evidence of aggravating circumstances attending the conversion warranted jury consideration of punitive damages.

Key Quotes

“punitive damages are allowable where the circumstances surrounding the conversion are such as to show fraud, actual malice, deliberate violence or oppression, or such gross negligence as to indicate a wanton disregard of the rights of others”

Establishes the Florida legal standard for when punitive damages are permitted in conversion cases

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence
Facts & Procedural History

Doral Country Club and Herman Kaskel sued Lindgren Plumbing Company for conversion. The trial court directed a verdict in plaintiff's favor on liabili…

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.

Topics
Special Damages Market Value Compensatory Damages Aggravating Circumstances

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Special Damages cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
HENDRY, Judge.

HENDRY, Judge.

This is an appeal by defendant, and a cross-appeal by plaintiff from a final judgment in an action for conversion. Defendant-appellant seeks either reduction of the compensatory damages awarded by the jury or a new trial on the question of damages. Plaintiff, by cross-appeal seeks reversal of the trial judge’s order granting defendant’s motion for a directed verdict on the issue of punitive damages.

There is no controversy as to the propriety of the trial court’s directing a verdict in plaintiff’s favor as to liability.

Thus, the issues for our determination are:

“1. Whether the judgment for $20,-186.20 compensatory damages is supported by the record, and,
“2. Whether the trial court;
“(a) should have directed a verdict for the plaintiff on the issue of punitive damages, or
“(b) should have submitted the issue of punitive damages for jury determination, or,
“(c) correctly directed a verdict on the issue of punitive damages in favor of the defendant.”

Dealing first with the question concerning compensatory damages, our review of the record compels a conclusion that the evidence is insufficient in law to support a verdict in excess of $8,488.51. That sum represents the proved market value of the property shown to have been converted as of the time and place of the conversion.1

We do not decide whether or not the special damages claimed by plaintiff could have been assessed. However, assuming arguen-do that such damages could have been recovered, plaintiff’s proof did not meet the legal requirements established for recovery of same.2

Turning to the question of punitive damages, we find the Florida rule to be that punitive damages are allowable where the circumstances surrounding the conversion are such as to show fraud, actual malice, deliberate violence or oppression, or such gross negligence as to indicate a wanton disregard of the rights of others. It is said that where the wrong partakes of a criminal character punitive damages may be allowed.3 If there is any evidence tending to show that punitive damages could be properly inflicted, even if the court be of the opinion that the preponderance of the evidence is the other way, the court should leave the question to the jury.4

In the instant case there was ample proof of circumstances of aggravation attending the conversion to have required submission of the question of punitive damages to the jury.5 Therefore, we reverse the order granting a directed verdict in favor of defendant on the issue of punitive damages and remand the cause to the trial *572court with directions to submit the issue to a jury.

With regard to compensatory damages, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded, with directions to enter a judgment in- accordance with the proof, so that the judgment as of the date it was originally entered will be in the amount of $8,448.-51, together with interest from that date, and as modified and entered, the judgment for compensatory damages will stand affirmed.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part with directions.

CARROLL, Judge

(concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I concur in the majority decision except on the matter of punitive damages. In my opinion the facts disclosed were insufficient upon which to predicate punitive damages, and the trial judge was eminently correct in so holding.

Other
CARROLL, Judge

CARROLL, Judge

(concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I concur in the majority decision except on the matter of punitive damages. In my opinion the facts disclosed were insufficient upon which to predicate punitive damages, and the trial judge was eminently correct in so holding.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (31 total)

  • Urling v. Helms Exterminators, Inc., 468 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
    …lessness, or a grossly careless disregard of the safety and welfare of the public, or that reckless indifference to the rights of others which is equivalent to an intentional violation of them.’ In Doral Country Club, Inc. v. Lindgren Plumbing Co., 175 So. 2d 570, 571 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), the court stated: “If there is any evidence tending to show that punitive damages could be properly inflicted, even if [*455] the court be of the opinion that the preponderance of the evidence is the other way, the court sho…
  • Ellis v. Golconda Corp., 352 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
    …ending to show that punitive damages might be inflicted, even if the court is of the opinion that the preponderance of the evidence is the other way, the court should leave the question to the jury. Doral Country Club, Inc. v. Lindgren Plumbing Co., 175 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1965). The fact that punitive damages were assessed against McKenzie Tank Lines, Inc., the corporate employer, matters not. “The general rule, and the weight of authority is that in ordinary cases the allowance of exemplary damages ap…
  • The Richards Co., Inc. v. Harrison, 262 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)
    …ld be properly inflicted, even if the court be of the opinion that the preponderance of the evidence is the other way, the cotirt should leave the question to the jury.’ ” (Emphasis supplied) Citing Doral Country Club, Inc. v. Lindgren Plumbing Co., 175 So. 2d 570 (Fla.App.1965). In Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Morgan, 213 So. 2d 632 (Fla.App.1968), the court adhered to the rule that is alluded to above holding that the fixing of the amount of punitive damages is peculiarly within the province of a…

Previewing 3 of 31 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw