MIAMI TRANSIT COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION,
v.
JOHN J. YELLEN
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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a $2,000 jury verdict for compensatory and punitive damages awarded to a bus passenger who was assaulted by a Miami Transit Company bus driver following a dispute over fare payment. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the plaintiff's conduct was excessive and reduced the damages award.
The court affirmed the $2,000 verdict, holding that provocation cannot bar an action for malicious, unlawful, and intentional assault and battery by a common carrier's employee, though it may be considered in mitigation of damages. The jury's verdict, approved by the trial court, should not be overturned absent a strong showing of error.
“The jury is the trier of the facts and when they have been properly instructed in the law and the trial and record are otherwise free from error, a strong showing is required to overturn the verdict especially where the verdict has, as here, received the approval of the trial court.”
Establishes the high standard for overturning jury verdicts that have been approved by the trial court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohn J. Yellen was a passenger on a Miami Transit Company bus who requested to exit through the rear door without paying his fare upfront at a traffic…
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 Common Carrier Duty cases and more on FLexlaw
The judgment before us for review is based largely on punitive damages recovered against the Miami Transit Company because one of the bus drivers assaulted a passenger. The only attack upon the judgment is that it is excessive.
Plaintiff, John J. Yellen, was a passenger on one of the busses of the Miami Transit Company which operated as a common carrier over and upon the streets of the City of Miami. At times it is not out of the ordinary, if not customary, for a passenger to pay his fare as he left the bus instead of upon entering. Plaintiff rode the bus until it reached a certain intersection in the city when the bus stopped for a signal light and not at a regular bus stop. Yellen was standing in the rear of a crowded bus and asked the driver to open the door at the rear of the bus. The driver told him he would have to pay his fare before leaving the bus. Again plaintiff asked the driver to open the rear door, *352when the driver, in a loud voice, told him he would have to come to the front of the bus and pay his fare before getting off. Plaintiff shouted to the driver, “We can’t get through here, it is impossible, you are crazy if you think we can get through there.” The bus driver, in a loud voice, told plaintiff that he would have to come to the front of the bus. Plaintiff shouted, “Open this damn door.”
The door at the rear of the bus was opened and plaintiff, with a friend, got off the bus, took some tokens from his pocket and when he started toward the front of the bus saw the driver approaching him in an antagonistic manner, with his hands clinched and said, “What would you do if I didn’t open that damn door? What in hell would you do?” Plaintiff said, “I wanted that door open and I didn’t want any arguments. Here'is your fare; you can go to hell.” Whereupon the driver struck plaintiff, knocked him down and continued to hit him until someone called a policeman, standing nearby, who stopped the fight. The bus operator, a young man about 28 years old, was 5 feet, 10 inches tall and weighed around 230 pounds. Plaintiff, about 45 years of age, was 5 feet, 10 Yz inches tall and weighed approximately 175 pounds.
Both were arrested by the police officer. Plaintiff was taken to police headquarters and incarcerated in a cell, with bars, for about an hour and a quarter or an hour and a half. •
Plaintiff sued for compensatory and punitive damages and the jury awarded a $2000.00 verdict. On motion for a new trial the court approved the verdict.
It is claimed that plaintiff’s conduct precipitated the assault and battery and for that reason the damages should have been reduced.
The jury is the trier of the facts and when they have been properly instructed in the law and the trial and record are otherwise free from error, a strong showing is required to overturn the verdict especially where the verdict has, as here, received the approval of the trial court. Seaver, et vir, v. Stratton, 133 Fla. 183, 183 So. 335; Albert v. Miami Transit Co., 154 Fla. 186, 17 So. (2nd) 89.
No point is made of error other than on the question of the amount of the verdict. The plaintiff’s allegations and *353proof are that the assault, and battery were malicious, unlawful and intentional, thus entitling him to recover punitive damages. The court properly instructed the jury that provocation could not be shown to bar the action, but could be considered in mitigation of damages. The following authorities justify the verdict and judgment: Vol. 4, Amer. Jur., Sec. 164, pg. 203; Seaver v. Statton, supra; Albert v. Miami Transit Co., supra; Vanvaks v. Chantly, 107 Fla. 647, 145 So. 838; Pandula v. Fonseca, 145 Fla. 395, 199 So. 358; Adler, et al., v. Saffran, 147 Fla. 549, 3 So. (2nd) 364.
The judgment is affirmed.
CHAPMAN, C. J., BROWN, BUFORD and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
TERRELL and THOMAS, JJ., dissent because they consider the verdict excessive.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nazareth v. Herndon Ambulance Serv., Inc., 467 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…rida has long recognized vicarious liability on the part of a carrier-employer for torts of employees under such circumstances without regard to whether they were committed within the scope of employment. [*1079] See Miami Transit Company v. Yellen, 156 Fla. 351, 22 So. 2d 787 (1945) (bus company); Commodore Cruise Line Ltd. (cruise ship owner); Jacobs v. Harlem Cab, Inc., 183 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966) (taxi cab company); Henderson v. Tarver, 123 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960) (taxi cab company). In Wrig…
-
Commodore Cruise Line, Ltd. v. Ilona Kormendi and George Kormendi, 344 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…loyment. While case law and authority for awarding punitive damages against a common carrier and in favor of a passenger for the wrongful acts of an employee done within the scope of the employee’s employment are ample, Miami Transit Co. v. Yellen, 156 Fla. 351, 22 So. 2d 787 (1945); Atlantic Greyhound Lines v. Lovett, 134 Fla. 505, 184 So. 133 (1938); 5 Fla.Jur. Carriers § 144; our research and research of counsel have failed to reveal dispositive authority from within this state for the question posed ab…
-
Brown v. Palmer, 233 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)…In his certificate to this court the said judge states that during the trial of this civil action for assault and battery, seeking both compensatory and punitive damages, he gave the following charge, on the authority of Miami Transit Co. v. Yellen, 156 Fla. 351, 22 So. 2d 787 (1945): “I charge you that provocation is not a bar to a civil action of assault and battery but in a case where the jury finds that the defendant is liable to the plaintiff for damages provocation may be considered by the jury in mi…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The City of Miami Beach v. Ocean & Inland Co., 147 Fla. 480 (Fla. 1941)
- Adler v. Nelly Saffran (Fla. 1914)
- Pandula v. Pinkey Fonseca, 145 Fla. 395 (Fla. 1940)
- Seaver v. Stratton, 133 Fla. 183 (Fla. 1937)
- Albert v. Miami Transit Co., Inc., 154 Fla. 186 (Fla. 1944)
- Vanvaks v. Chantly, 107 Fla. 647 (Fla. 1933)
- Peninsular Land Co. v. Stevens, 154 Fla. 186 (Fla. 1944)