DR. THOR R. BRICKMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
ARMANDO GARRIDO, 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.
In a malicious prosecution action, the court affirmed a jury verdict awarding $18,000 compensatory and $2,000 punitive damages, holding that the damages were supported by evidence of a prosecution for grand larceny instituted without probable cause.
Compensatory damages of $18,000 in a malicious prosecution action are not excessive when the defendant instituted a grand larceny prosecution without probable cause and the plaintiff suffered non-pecuniary harm beyond minimal out-of-pocket expenses.
[1] In a malicious prosecution action, damages for non-pecuniary harm such as emotional distress and injury to reputation are properly determined by jury valuation rather tha…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant initiated a grand larceny prosecution against the plaintiff without probable cause. The plaintiff's out-of-pocket expenses were $960.00,…
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 Non-Pecuniary Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
CARROLL, Judge.
In this action for malicious prosecution the plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages. The cause was tried before a jury. The court directed a verdict for the plaintiff on liability, and the issues relating to damages were submitted for jury determination. By the verdict rendered the plaintiff was awarded $18,000 compensatory damages and $2,000 punitive damages. Judgment was entered thereon and the defendant appealed.-
On consideration of the record and briefs, we hold to be without merit the contention of the appellant that the compensatory damages awarded were excessive and not supportable on the evidence. The unsuccessful prosecution, which was the basis for this action, was for grand larceny. On the facts relating thereto as established in evidence in the trial of this case, it appeared the institution of such prosecution by the defendant was patently without probable cause. Although the plaintiff’s out-of-pocket expenses were not large ($960.00), the other elements of damage in such action, sustained and suffered by the plaintiff as shown in the evidence, were of the kind for which determination of the amount to be awarded therefor could not be made by mathematical formula, and the valuation to be placed thereon was a matter within the province of the jury. The trial judge declined to reduce the compen satory damage award when importuned to do so. No sufficient reason has been shown for this court to determine otherwise.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Odoms v. The Travelers Ins. Co., 339 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 1976)…2d 207 at 208. In seeking our jurisdiction plaintiff says: (1) The District Court of Appeal substituted its judgment for that of the jury and the trial judge in regard to the amount of damages, and such decision conflicts with Brickman v. Garrido, 291 So. 2d 26 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Westerman v. Shell’s City Inc., 265 So. 2d 43 (Fla.1972); and Maiborne v. Kuntz, 56 So. 2d 720 (Fla.1952); and (2) In reversing the judgment because of the trial court’s ruling admitting evidence of policy limits, the decision co…1 / 2
-
City OF Miami v. Swift, 481 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…rge of carrying a concealed weapon and arrest thereof continues on the computers of Dade County with no notation that the charges were dismissed. In this connection see and compare Bould v. Touchette, 349 So. 2d 1181 (Fla.1977); Brickman v. Garrido, 291 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Mary Beth G. v. City of Chicago, 723 F. 2d 1263 (7th Cir.1983); United States v. Benlizar, 459 F.Supp. 614 (Dist.Ct.D.C.1978); Davidson v. Dell, 180 Col. 123, 503 P. 2d 157 (1972). [*28] Therefore, for the reasons above stated, t…