SAUNDERS HARDWARE FIVE AND TEN, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
NEDDA LOW, 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.
Saunders Hardware appealed an order denying its motion to dismiss punitive damages in a slander case where the jury found no compensatory damages. The court held that punitive damages may be awarded for defamation actionable per se even without proof of actual damages, and remanded for a new trial on punitive damages.
No. A plaintiff may recover punitive damages for defamation actionable per se even though no compensatory damages are awarded, because the presumption of injury arising from defamation actionable per se satisfies the requirement of showing actual damages as a basis for exemplary damages.
[1] A verdict for the defendant on compensatory damages in a slander suit does not bar the plaintiff's right to punitive damages.
[2] In a suit for libel or slander actionable per se, punitive damages may be awarded even if no actual damages are proven.
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“In a suit for libel or slander, although no special damage may have been proved, upon some proof of the malicious character of the publication, a plaintiff may recover punitive damages, the purpose of which is not to compensate but rather to serve as a deterrent to others inclined to commit a similar offense.”
Establishes the principle that punitive damages are available independently of actual damages in defamation cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNedda Low filed a complaint against Saunders Hardware for slander and other claims. The case proceeded to jury trial. The jury returned a verdict in f…
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 Deterrence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant-appellant takes this interlocutory appeal to review an order denying defendant’s motions for judgment in accordance with verdict and for judgment in accordance with motion for directed verdict with respect to plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages.
A detailed recitation of the facts is not necessary for the disposition of this case. Simply, plaintiff-appellee, Nedda Low, filed a complaint against the defendant-appellant, Saunders Hardware, for, inter alia, slander. The cause proceeded to a jury trial. At the conclusion thereof, the jury submitted its verdict in favor of the defendant with respect to the claim for compensatory damages on the slander count, but could not agree on the amount to be assessed with respect to the claim thereunder for punitive damages. Thereafter defendant filed a motion for judgment in accordance with the verdict on the claim of compensatory damages on the slander count and a motion for judgment in accordance with defendant’s motion for directed verdict on the punitive damages claim thereunder. Plaintiff moved for judgment in accordance with motion for directed verdict on the issue of liability for slander. After hearing oral argument on the motions of the respective parties, the trial judge entered an order denying the same. He further ordered that plaintiff is entitled to a new trial on the issue of slander. Defendant appeals therefrom.
In this appeal, we are being asked to determine whether a verdict for the defendant on the matter of compensatory damages in a suit for slander bars plaintiff’s right to punitive damages on such a claim. We reply in the negative.
In a suit for libel or slander, although no special damage may have been proved, upon some proof of the malicious character of the publication, a plaintiff may recover punitive damages, the purpose of which is not to compensate but rather to serve as a deterrent to others inclined to commit a similar offense. See 20 Fla.Jur. Libel and Slander § 90 (1958) and cases cited therein.
In light of the above principle of law, we hereby adopt the general rule that where the defamation complained of is actionable per se, punitive damages may be awarded even though the amount of actual damages is neither found nor shown, for in such a case the requirement of a showing of actual damages as a basis of an award of exemplary damages is satisfied by the presumption of injury which arises from a showing of libel or slander that is actionable per se. See 50 Am.Jur.2d Libel and Slander § 352 (1970) and Annot., 17 A.L.R.2d, 527 at 545 (1951).
The slander in the case sub judice being actionable per se we find that the trial judge was correct in denying defendant’s motion for judgment in accordance with motion for directed verdict on the claim of punitive damages.
However, the jury in the instant case having determined that plaintiff-appellee is not entitled to compensatory damages on the slander count, we hereby remand the cause to the trial court to hold a new trial as to the amount of punitive damages thereon, if any, to which plaintiff is entitled.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lawnwood Med. Ctr. Inc. v. Samuel H. Sadow, M.D., 43 So. 3d 710 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…See Lundquist v. Alewine, 397 So. 2d 1148, 1150 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (where defamation is actionable per se, punitive damages may be awarded even though the amount of actual damages is neither found nor shown); Saunders Hardware Five and Ten v. Low, 307 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 330 So. 2d 21 (Fla.1976) (same); Bobenhausen, 344 So. 2d at 281 (in libel per se even though no special damages proven, plaintiff may still recover punitive damages upon a showing that publication was made for malic…1 / 2
-
Medford B. Matthews v. Deland State Bank, 334 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…requirement of a showing of actual damages as a basis of an award of exemplary damages is satisfied by the presumption of injury which arises from a showing of libel or slander that is actionable per se.” Saunders Hardware Five and Ten, Inc. v. Low, 307 So. 2d 893 (Fla.App.3d, 1974). Therefore, the court erred in instructing the jury that punitive damages could not be awarded unless an award of compensatory damages was made. The judgment rendered against Matthews is reversed and this case is remanded for a…1 / 2
-
Lundquist v. Alewine, 397 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…, the requirement of a showing of actual damages as a basis of an award of exemplary damages is satisfied by the presumption of injury which arises from a showing of libel or slander that is actionable per se. Saunders Hardware Five and Ten v. Low, 307 So. 2d 893 (Fla.3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 330 So. 2d 21 (Fla.1976). See also Bobenhausen v. Cassat Avenue Mobile Homes, 344 So. 2d 279 (Fla.1st DCA 1977), cert. discharged, 363 So. 2d 1065 (1978). Since the statements made are slanderous per se, malice is pr…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence