DOROTHY KING, APPELLANT,
v.
CECIL SAUCIER 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.
In this conversion action, the trial court erroneously granted a directed verdict for defendants, finding insufficient evidence of damages. The appellate court reversed, holding that a plaintiff who establishes an invasion of a legal right through conversion is entitled to at least nominal damages, even if compensatory or punitive damages are not proven.
A plaintiff in a conversion action who establishes an invasion of a legal right is entitled to recover at least nominal damages, even if compensatory or punitive damages cannot be proven. The directed verdict was improper because the jury should have been allowed to determine whether conversion occurred.
[1] A plaintiff who establishes the invasion of a legal right is entitled to recover at least nominal damages.
[2] Nominal damages are available in actions for conversion.
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“where a plaintiff shows the invasion of a legal right, he may recover at least nominal damages”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that nominal damages are recoverable upon proof of legal right invasion, regardless of whether compensatory damages are proven.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant King's car was towed away from her place of employment by Conklin at the request of Saucier. Saucier claimed he had a lien on the car for un…
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 Directed Verdict Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this action for conversion, the trial judge granted a motion for a directed verdict in favor of the appellees/defendants, finding, as a matter of law, that appellant/plaintiff had failed to establish any damages. We agree with appellant, plaintiff below, that the trial judge erred in so ruling and we reverse.
At trial, the appellant’s evidence established that appellee Saucier hired appellee Conklin to tow appellant’s car away from her place of employment and that Conklin did so. Saucier admitted hiring Conklin, but claimed that he had a lien on appel lant’s car because he had done repair work on it and appellant had not paid him. Appellant, however, claimed that she had paid Saucier for the repair work.
After appellant rested her case, appellees moved for a directed verdict, arguing, as they argue here, that appellant had not presented sufficient evidence to prove compensatory or punitive damages. The trial court agreed with them and granted their motion.
In the posture this case arrives here, we find it unnecessary to reach the question whether appellant did establish compensatory or punitive damages because we hold that, on the evidence presented in her ease in chief, appellant was entitled to at least nominal damages. Although we have found no cases in Florida which deal with the question of nominal damages in a conversion suit, it is clear the general rule in this state is that where a plaintiff shows the invasion of a legal right, he may recover at least nominal damages. Hutchinson v. Tompkins, 259 So. 2d 129 (Fla.1972); Cason v. Baskin, 159 Fla. 31, 30 So. 2d 635 (1947); Tampa Electric Co v. Ferguson, 96 Fla. 375, 118 So. 211 (1928). Moreover, courts in other states have specifically ruled that nominal damages are available in actions for conversion. Stevenson v. Economy Bank of Ambridge, 413 Pa. 442, 197 A. 2d 721 (1964); MacGregor v. Watts, 254 App. Div. 904, 5 N.Y.S.2d 525 (1938); 18 Am. Jur.2d Conversion Section 93 (1965).
In looking at appellant’s case, we believe that the evidence was such that a jury could have found an invasion of appellant’s rights by conversion which could serve as the basis for an award of nominal damages. Conversion is defined as a wrongful taking of personal property with intent to exercise an ownership which is inconsistent with the real owner’s right of possession. Wilson Cypress Co. v. Logan, 120 Fla. 124, 162 So. 489 (1935). In the case at bar, if the jury believed appellant’s testimony, it could find that there was such a taking and, therefore an invasion of appellant’s rights. Consequently, it was error for the trial judge to keep this case from the jury as he did when he directed a verdict for appellees.
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the lower court and remand the ease for a new trial on all issues.
GRIMES’, A. C. J., and SCHEB and DAN-AHY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Senfeld v. The Bank of Nova Scotia Tr. Co. (cayman) Ltd., 450 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…tial elements of a conversion is [sic], a wrongful deprivation of property to the owner, and neither manucaption nor asportation is an essential element thereof.”); Quitman Naval Stores Co. v. Conway, 63 Fla. 253, 58 So. 840 (1912); King v. Saucier, 356 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Charter Air Center, Inc. v. Miller, 348 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 354 So. 2d 983 (Fla.1977); International Mail Order, Inc. v. Capital National Bank of Miami, 192 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Goodrich v. Malowney,…
-
Gamma Dev. Corp. v. Steinberg, 621 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…s, and as a result, no cause of action could exist. This argument fails to -recognize that nominal damages are available in conversion actions, and treble damages are allowed for civil theft. See § 772.11, Fla.Stat. (1991); see also King v. Saucier, 356 So. 2d 930, 931 (Fla.2d DCA 1978) (where a party claims an invasion of a legal right, nominal damages are appropriate) (quoting Hutchinson v. Tompkins, 259 So. 2d 129 (Fla.1972)). From the record, it cannot be determined that the privilege to amend has been a…
-
Levy v. Eliahu Ben-Shmuel, 255 So. 3d 493 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…argued, that we should remand for entry of a final judgment for nominal damages on the conversion claim. We therefore do not address the propriety of such a remedy on remand. See Cason v. Baskin, 159 Fla. 31, 30 So. 2d 635 (1947) ; King v. Saucier, 356 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). As an exception to this general rule, a new trial on damages would be appropriate where the party's failure to establish damages was the result of judicial error. See, e.g., R & B Holding Co. v. Christopher Advert. Grp., Inc., 9…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hutchison v. Tompkins, 259 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 1972)
- Zelma Cason v. Baskin, 159 Fla. 31 (Fla. 1947)
- Tampa Elec. Co. v. Luella Ferguson and Her Husband, 96 Fla. 375 (Fla. 1928)
- Wilson Cypress Co. v. Logan, 120 Fla. 124 (Fla. 1935)