BEN W. HOY AND KLEAN MAINTENANCE SERVICE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
JAMES POYNER, 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 $10,000 in compensatory damages but reversed and remanded the $30,000 punitive damages award because the record contained no evidence of the defendants' financial worth, which is necessary for intelligent calculation of punitive damages under Florida law.
The punitive damages award must be reversed and remanded for a new trial on that issue because Florida law requires evidence of the defendants' net worth to allow a jury to intelligently fix the amount of punitive damages in accordance with Florida Standard Jury Instruction 6.-12.
[1] A jury verdict awarding compensatory damages in a malicious prosecution action may be affirmed if supported by competent and substantial evidence.
[2] The purpose of punitive damages is to punish wrongdoers by exacting a sum that will hurt but not bankrupt them, according to their financial ability.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The purpose of punitive damages is the punishment of each wrongdoer by exacting from his pocketbook a sum of money which, according to his financial ability, will hurt, but not bankrupt.”
Establishes the foundational purpose and principle governing punitive damages awards.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePoyner brought a malicious prosecution action against Hoy and Klean Maintenance Service, Inc. A jury found liability and awarded $10,000 in compensato…
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 Net Worth cases and more on FLexlaw
[*307] HOBSON, Judge.
Appellants appeal a final judgment pursuant to a jury verdict awarding Poyner compensatory damages in the amount of $10,000 and punitive damages in the amount of $30,000 in a malicious prosecution action.
The record contains competent and substantial evidence to establish the liability of the appellants for both compensatory and punitive damages, and to justify the amount of the compensatory damages awarded.
Our concern is with the amount awarded for punitive damages. The record is devoid of any evidence tending to prove the financial worth of the appellants or their financial ability to pay an award of such damages.
The purpose of punitive damages is the punishment of each wrongdoer by exacting from his pocketbook a sum of money which, according to his financial ability, will hurt, but not bankrupt. The allowance of evidence of financial worth of the tortfeasors will make possible the attainment of the purpose sought to be accomplished. Lehman v. Spencer Ladd’s, Inc., Fla.1966, 182 So. 2d 402; Richards Company v. Harrison, Fla.App.1st, 1972, 262 So. 2d 258.
In order for the jury to fix intelligently the amount of punitive damages in line with Florida Standard Jury Instruction 6.-12, especially in cases involving multiple defendants of different pecuniary circumstances, it is necessary for there to be adequate proofs of the defendants’ net worth. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 675 v. Lassitter, Fla.App.4th 1974, 295 So. 2d 634; Brock v. Maine, Fla.App.4th 1974, 293 So. 2d 375; contra, Aaron v. Rinaldi, Fla.App.3rd 1974, 296 So. 2d 632. See also Richards Company v. Harrison, supra.
Appellants contend that the assessed damages were excessive, and appel-lee contends that the award was justified. Yet, this court has not been furnished a basis upon which to make a determination of the issue. For this reason, we must reverse that portion of the final judgment awarding appellee punitive damages in the amount of $30,000.
We have considered the other points raised on appeal and find that appellants have failed to demonstrate reversible error. That portion of the final judgment awarding appellee compensatory damages is affirmed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial on the issue of the amount of punitive damages only.
Reversed in part; affirmed in part, and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.
McNULTY, C. J., and GRIMES, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johns-Manville Sales Corp. v. Janssens, 463 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…estroy the corporation, contrary to the well-recognized principle that punitive damages will not be allowed when to do so will bankrupt the defending tort feasor. Arab Termite & Pest Control v. Jenkins, 409 So. 2d 1039 (Fla.1982), and Hoy v. Poyner, 305 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974) (The purposes of punitive damages are served “by extracting from [defendant’s] pocketbook a sum of [*253] money which, according to [its] financial ability, will hurt, but not bankrupt.” Id. at 307). «Punitive damages, appellant a…
-
Ursula H. Smith v. Telophase Nat'l Cremation Soc'y, Inc., 471 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…e damage award to be in an amount which will result in economic castigation or bankruptcy of the defendant. Wackenhut v. Canty; Bould v. Touchette, 349 So. 2d 1181 (Fla.1977); Lehman v. Spencer Ladd’s, Inc., 182 So. 2d 402 (Fla.1965); Hoy v. Poyner, 305 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Joab, Inc. v. Thrall, 245 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). See also Rinaldi v. Aaron, 314 So. 2d 762 (Fla.1975). We therefore conclude, in regard to appellant’s third issue, that the trial judge was correct in ordering a remittitu…
-
Wient B. Jenkins & Cairn Holding Co. v. Milliken, 498 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…s admissible in cases where punitive damages may be awarded on the theory that the wrongdoer should be punished “by extracting from his pocketbook a sum of money which, according to his financial ability, will hurt, but not bankrupt.” Hoy v. Poyner, 305 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). Once it has been determined that an employer is liable, albeit vicariously, for punitive damages, a proper award cannot be made without consideration of the employer’s ability to pay. Surely, evidence of the financial worth of th…
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
- Lehman v. Spencer Ladd's, Inc., 182 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 1965)
- The Richards Co., Inc. v. Harrison, 262 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)
- Int'l Union OF Operating Eng'rs v. Lassitter, 295 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Aaron v. Rinaldi, 296 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Brock v. Maine, 293 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Bidwell v. Carstens, 293 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)