AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY, A CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
NANDOR JUHASZ, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1973-07-10
No. 72-1389
Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.
281 So. 2d 244 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1973) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Topics
Independent Tort Improper Closing Argument Defamation

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Independent Tort cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant American Express Company appeals a final judgment based on a jury verdict for the plaintiff-appellee in the amount of $980 for compensatory damages and $1,2S0 for punitive damages. The principal argument presented is that the evidence was insufficient to establish punitive damages because no independent tort was alleged or proven. Our examination of the pleadings convinces us that while the complaint was inartfully drawn it was sufficient to inform the defendant of the plaintiff’s claim that damages for the tort of defamation were sought. See Milu, Inc. v. Duke, Fla.App.1967, 204 So.2d 31. The evidence submitted was sufficient to support the claim.

The appellant’s second point urges reversal upon the claimed impropriety of certain statements presented by the plaintiff’s attorney in his closing argument. The appellant as defendant failed to object to the argument, and the appellant’s motion for mistrial was not made until after the jury had retired. Under these circumstances, we ought not reverse unless the claimed improper statements were so prejudicial as to be incurable by instruction. We find that such is not the case in this instance. Cf. Stewart v. Cook, Fla.App.1969, 218 So.2d 491.

Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Sharp v. Lewis, 367 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
    …native, a new trial. We have examined the record in the light of the claim of error for the denial of the motion for a mistrial and find that in each instance, no reversible error is shown under the rule stated in American Express Company v. Juhasz, 281 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). See also Dukes v. Pinder, 211 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). The errors complained of as a basis for a new trial do not present reversible error because the questioned remarks were either a result of invited error, see Compania…
  • C. G. R. Med. Corp. v. Share, 312 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
    …PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See 6551 Collins Avenue Corp. v. Millen, Fla.1958, 104 So. 2d 337; Stewart v. Cook, Fla.App.1969, 218 So. 2d 491; American Express Company v. Juhasz, Fla.App.1973, 281 So. 2d 244; Clinica Union Latina, Inc. v. Seaboard Life Insurance Company of America, Fla.App.1974, 305 So. 2d 244.…
  • Roadway Express, Inc. v. Dade Cnty., 537 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
    …r a mistrial. The motion was denied. Absent a timely and proper objection, for whatever reason, White Constr. Co. v. DuPont, 455 So. 2d 1026 (Fla.1984); Nelson v. Reliance Ins. Co., 368 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); American Express Co. v. Juhasz, 281 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), reversal may be had only if the comments were so prejudicial as to amount to fundamental error. Having examined the record, we find no fundamental error occurred. The verdict was supported by the evidence and does not appear to h…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw