WOODROW TUEL AND MURIEL TUEL, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE HERTZ CORPORATION, ETC., ET AL., 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.
Plaintiffs appealed a directed verdict against them on punitive damages in a negligent automobile accident case. The trial court found insufficient evidence of gross negligence or recklessness to support punitive damages despite compensatory damages of $81,500 being awarded. The appellate court affirmed, holding that witness testimony regarding the defendant's speed was too unreliable to justify instructing a jury on punitive damages.
The trial court properly directed a verdict on punitive damages. The court determined as a matter of law that the evidence did not establish a sufficient basis for instructing the jury on punitive damages, and the appellate court will not substitute its judgment for the trial court's assessment of witness credibility and the evidence.
[1] A trial court has the authority to determine as a matter of law whether a basis exists for instructing a jury on punitive damages.
[2] An appellate court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court regarding the sufficiency of evidence to support punitive damages when the record supports…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It is within the province of the trial court to determine as a matter of law whether or not there is a basis for instructing the jury as to punitive damages.”
Establishes the legal standard that trial courts have discretion to determine whether punitive damages should be submitted to a jury.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn automobile accident occurred at the intersection of S.W. 197th Avenue and 296th Street in Dade County. The defendant, Gabriel E. Pichardo, allegedl…
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 Wantonness cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
Appellants-plaintiffs seek review of an adverse judgment on the issue of punitive damages which was rendered by the trial court pursuant to defendants’ motion for directed verdict on that issue at the conclusion of the plaintiffs’ case.
A jury subsequently awarded the appellants a sum of $81,500 in compensatory damages as a result of an automobile accident at the intersection of S.W. 197th Avenue and 296th Street, in Dade County. The single issue raised for our consideration is whether or not the trial judge acted correctly in directing a verdict against the appellants on their claim for punitive damages.
The appellants contend that the evidence, viewed most favorably to them as the non-moving parties, demonstrates that the individual defendant, Gabriel E. Pichardo, was driving his automobile at a speed from 70 to 100 m.p.h., that he admitted he did not see a stop sign and that he did nothing to slow down or to evade the collision with the vehicle driven by the appellants. Appellants conclude that this conduct was in gross disregard of the safety and welfare of the public, and therefore a jury would be justified in awarding punitive damages.
However, we have reviewed the record, particularly the testimony of Mrs. Stella Mitchell and her daughter, Mrs. Carolyn Ann King, who each witnessed the accident, and have concluded that the trial judge properly directed a verdict on punitive damages in this case.
It is within the province of the trial court to determine as a matter of law whether or not there is a basis for instructing the jury as to punitive damages. DeWitt v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, Fla.App.1972, 268 So. 2d 177; St. Petersburg Sheraton Corporation v. Stuart, Fla.App.1970, 242 So. 2d 185. In this case, the court having viewed the witnesses and listened to their testimony, determined that the evidence presented would not justify punitive damages. This court will not substitute its judgment for the trial court’s in the light of the record before us. Cf. Booth v. Wilson & Toomer Fertilizer Company, Fla.App.1968, 211 So. 2d 217.
There is an affinity between the character of negligence supporting an award of punitive damages and a conviction for the crime of manslaughter. Car- raway v. Revell, Fla.1959, 116 So. 2d 16. Both are punishments for public wrongs, and punitive damages are intended to serve as a deterrent to future similar offenses. See, Sauer v. Sauer, Fla.App. 1961, 128 So. 2d 761. Moreover, each case must be determined on the basis of the malice, moral turpitude, wantonness, or the outrageousness of the tortious conduct allegedly involved. St. Petersburg Sheraton Corporation v. Stuart, supra; Dr. P. Phillips & Sons v. Kilgore, Fla. 1943, 152 Fla. 578, 12 So. 2d 465.
Mrs. Mitchell and Mrs. King, upon' whose testimony appellants rely to establish the defendant’s speed in this case, indicated that the defendant’s car was first seen by them approximately one-third of a block or 25 to 40 feet before it entered the intersection.
Mrs. Mitchell stated that she has not driven a car for thirteen years, and Mrs. King testified that she was not a good judge of distance or speed. We do not think the excessiveness of the defendant’s speed was established in such a manner that a jury would be entitled to conclude that punitive damages should be awarded. Therefore, we hold that the trial court was correct in granting the defendants’ motion for directed verdict on that issue.
For the reasons stated and upon the authorities cited, the final judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
BOARDMAN, EDWARD F., Associate Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.
After examining the photographs of the intersection involved, the physical evidence of the damage done to both vehicles and carefully reviewing the testimony of the witness, Gabriel E. Pichardo, the driver of the other vehicle involved in this accident, who testified in behalf of the plaintiffs, Woodrow Tuel and Muriel Tuel, as an adverse witness, and the testimony of the witnesses, Mitchell and King, who likewise testified on behalf of the plaintiffs, I believe that there was sufficient, competent evidence to submit to the jury the question of punitive damages.
The trial judge erred in granting the defendants’ motion for directed verdict on this question at the conclusion of the plaintiffs’ case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Walker v. The City OF Miami, 337 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…of the evidence through discovery or during trial that would bring this case within the rule requiring wantonness or reckless indifference and disregard. See Ingraham v. Pettit, Fla.App.1974, 303 So. 2d 703; Tuel v. Hertz Corporation, Fla.App.1974, 296 So. 2d 597. As to the conduct of the trial, the appellant urges error in the court’s exclusion of photographs of the deceased child taken at the morgue. He argues that the photographs were relevant to the amount of his mental suffering and the evidence did sh…
-
Port Royale Apts. v. Myer Delnick and Lee Delnick, 358 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…ection of a verdict for appellants on the issue of punitive damages. A careful review of the record supports the trial judge’s ruling that, as a matter of law, there was no basis for a recovery based upon punitive damages. Tuel v. Hertz Corporation, 296 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); De Witt v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, 268 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972); see also Singer v. I. A. Durbin, Inc., 348 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) and Carter v. Lake Wales Hospital Association, 213 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 2d D…
-
Baro v. Se. First Nat'l Bank OF Miami Springs & Se. Banking Corp., 406 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…la. 3d DCA 1974); Dunn v. Campbell, 166 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). We find no error in refusing to submit the question of punitive damages to the jury, as there was no sufficient basis in the record to warrant it. Tuel v. The Hertz Corporation, 296 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); St. Peterburg Sheraton Corporation v. Stuart, 242 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970); Winn & Lovett Grocery Company v. Archer, [*534] 126 Fla. 308, 171 So. 214 (1936). Further, the effect of the jury verdict on liability rendered this…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Royal Carraway v. Revell, 116 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1959)
- DR. P. Phillips & Sons, Inc. v. Kilgore, 152 Fla. 578 (Fla. 1943)
- State of Fla. Ex rel. Max Silverman v. Coleman, 152 Fla. 578 (Fla. 1943)
- Sauer v. Sauer, 128 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- ST. Petersburg Sheraton Corp. v. Stuart, 242 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)
- Forrest E. Honea v. Monroe Brannen, 242 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)
- DeWITT v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 268 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)
- Mac Edgar Booth v. Wilson & Toomer Fertilizer Co. & Solomon G. Williams, 211 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)