WILLIE MAE ANDREWS, APPELLANT,
v.
MOTHER'S AUTO SALES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ET AL., APPELLEES

Fla. 3d DCA | 1973-07-31
No. 72-829
Before PEARSON, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.
281 So. 2d 217 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1973)

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.


Holding

The court held that the trial court erred in directing a verdict for individual defendants and striking the claim for punitive damages, but did not err in granting a new trial for the corporate defendant.


Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff sued for conversion of an automobile. The trial court directed a verdict for individual defendants, struck punitive damages against the corp…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

*218PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by plaintiff in an action for conversion of an automobile brought against the defendants-appellees. The trial court directed a verdict in favor of the individual defendants and struck plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages against the corporate defendant. The jury returned a verdict against the corporate defendant in the amount of $2,000.00 as compensatory damages. Upon motion of the defendant the trial court granted a new trial on the ground that the amount of the verdict shocked the judicial conscience of the court. Appellant has assigned these rulings of the trial court as error and urges reversal.

From our consideration of the record on appeal, briefs and argument of counsel we have concluded that the trial court erred in directing a verdict in favor of the individual defendants and striking the claim for punitive damages.

The rule in Florida is that “punitive damages are allowable where 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 rights of others.”1 We think there was sufficient proof adduced as to all the defendants’ involvement in the alleged conversion as to have required submission of the question of liability and punitive damages to the jury. We hold that it was error for the court to rule otherwise.

As to the trial court’s order granting a new trial to the corporate defendant, we have concluded that no error has been made to appear. Therefore we affirm the order granting a new trial and reverse the order granting a directed verdict in favor of the individual defendant and the order striking plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages against the corporate defendant.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw