LINDGREN PLUMBING COMPANY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
DORAL COUNTRY CLUB, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND HERMAN KASKEL, APPELLEES
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.
Lindgren Plumbing Company appealed a judgment awarding $10,500 in punitive damages (combined against two defendants) following a prior appeal that remanded the punitive damages issue to a jury. The court affirmed the punitive damages awards, rejecting the plaintiff's argument that they were inadequate.
The punitive damages awards were proper and within the jury's discretion. Punitive damages are not recoverable as a matter of right but may be awarded in the jury's discretion when appropriate. The trial judge did not err in refusing plaintiff's requested jury instructions on criminal statutes.
“Punitive damages are damages over and above such sum as will compensate a person for his actual loss. And the law permits their imposition, in proper cases, at the discretion of the jury, not because the party injured is entitled under the law to recover punitive damages as a matter of right, but as punishment to the wrongdoer, for the purpose of deterring him and others committing similar violations of the law from such wrongdoing in the future.”
Establishes the fundamental distinction between compensatory and punitive damages and the role of the jury's discretion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLindgren Plumbing Company sued Doral Country Club, Inc. and Herman Kaskel for conversion of personal property. The trial court initially awarded $20,1…
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 Compensatory Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
The action out of which this appeal arose was one for conversion of personal property, brought by Lindgren Plumbing Co., Inc. against Doral Country Club, Inc. and Herman Kaskel. Trial of the cause resulted in a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $20,-186.20 compensatory damages. No punitive damages'were awarded, upon the trial court ruling that the facts would not support an award thereof. On an app'eal by the de*243fendant and a cross appeal by the plaintiff, this court modified the judgment by reducing the amount of the compensatory damages to $8,448.51, reversed the ruling of the trial court excluding punitive damages, and remanded the cause to the trial court with direction to submit the issue of punitive damages to a jury. See Doral Country Club, Inc. v. Lindgren Plumbing Co., Fla. App.1965, 175 So.2d 570.
In subsequent proceedings a jury verdict was rendered for punitive damages in the amount of $10,000 against defendant Doral Country Club, Inc. and in the amount of $500 against the defendant Herman Kaskel. The present appeal is by the plaintiff from the judgment entered thereon.
On considering the contentions of the appellant in the light of the record and briefs, we conclude that no reversible error has been demonstrated, and that the judgment should be affirmed.
On the evidence presented the trial judge did not commit error in refusing plaintiff’s requests to charge the jury on the statutory definition of the crimes of grand larceny, conspiracy to commit a felony, and of breaking and entering an automobile or trailer with intent to commit a crime. The appellant’s contention that the awards of punitive damages were inadequate is without merit. Punitive damages are not recoverable as a matter of right. In a case where they are proper they may be awarded in the discretion of the jury. Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. McRoberts, 111 Fla. 278, 149 So. 631, 94 A.L.R. 376; Fisher v. City of Miami, Fla.App.1964, 160 So.2d 57; Spencer Ladd’s, Inc. v. Lehman, Fla.App. 1964, 167 So.2d 731.
In Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. McRoberts, supra, the Supreme Court said:
“Actual damages are recoverable at law out of a wrongdoer by the injured party as a matter of right. Such damages are recoverable as compensation for the actual loss sustained by such an injured party by reason of the tort-feasor’s wrongdoing. It is not so as to punitive damages. Punitive damages are damages over and above such sum as will compensate a person for his actual loss. And the law permits their imposition, in proper cases, at the discretion of the jury, not because the party injured is entitled under the law to recover punitive damages as a matter of right, but as punishment to the wrongdoer, for the purpose of deterring him and others committing similar violations of the law from such wrongdoing in the future. Therefore exemplary damages are, as it has been said, allowed by the law, not as a matter of compensation to the injured party, but because of the quality of the wrong done by the tort-feasor, from which the injured party suffers. Bowles v. Lowery, 5 Ala.App. 555, 59 So. 696.”
We are not now called upon to decide whether in any case it would be appropriate for a trial court on motion for new trial, or for an appellate court on appeal, to set aside a verdict for punitive damages for inadequacy. The punitive damage awards in the instant case were not for unsubstantial sums. It was within the discretion of the jury to refuse to allow punitive damages, or to allow them in such amount as they determined proper based on the evidence, and on the law as given them in charge by the court.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re the Est. of Brewer Corbin v. Corbin, 391 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…measured as of the time and place of conversion. Lilly v. Bronson, 177 So. 218, 129 Fla. 675 (1937); Doral Country Club, Inc. v. Lindgren Plumbing Co., 175 So. 2d 570 (Fla.3d DCA), cert. denied 179 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1965), after remand to trial court 196 So. 2d 242 (Fla.3d DCA 1967); Klein v. Newburger, Loeb & Co., 151 So. 2d 879 (Fla.3d DCA), after remand 153 So. 2d 344 (Fla.3d DCA 1963). Although argument might well be made that lost profits and other special damages should be awarded in conversion cases, s…
-
The Bank OF Miami v. Tambourine, 218 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…d for the rights of others was properly submitted to the jury. We think their verdict was proper. Cf. Doral Country Club, Inc. v. Lindgren Plumbing Co., Fla. App.1965, 175 So. 2d 570; Lindgren Plumbing Co. v. Doral Country Club, Inc., Fla. App.1967, 196 So. 2d 242; Levine v. Knowles, Fla.App. 1967, 197 So. 2d 329. The record clearly demonstrates that agents of the Bank, especially Mr. Henry, the agent who seized the boat, knew that the appellee was the owner of the boat. Therefore the taking without notice wa…
-
Thomas v. Gen. Fin. Corp. OF Fla., 204 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed upon the authority of the rule stated in Lindgren Plumbing Co. v. Doral Country Club, Inc., Fla.App.1967, 196 So. 2d 242: * * * It was within the discretion of the jury to refuse to allow punitive damages, or to allow them in such amount as they determined proper based on the evidence, and on the law as given them in charge by the court.” See also Florida East Coast…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. McRoberts, 111 Fla. 278 (Fla. 1933)
- Doral Country Club, Inc. v. Lindgren Plumbing Co., Inc., 175 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Spencer Ladd's, Inc. v. Lehman, 167 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Fisher v. The City OF Miami, 160 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)