CASSAT AVENUE MOBILE HOMES, INC., ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
AUGUST L. BOBENHAUSEN, RESPONDENT
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 discharged a writ of certiorari in a slander case, holding that while a trial judge has broad discretion to grant remittitur based on excessiveness or jury passion, the order of remittitur here was deficient because it failed to affirmatively show the impropriety of the verdict or demonstrate that the jury was influenced by outside considerations.
A trial judge has broad discretion to determine whether a verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence or was influenced by considerations outside the record, but an order of remittitur must affirmatively show the impropriety of the verdict or contain an independent determination that the jury was influenced by outside considerations to permit effective appellate review. The order here was deficient because it merely stated the verdict was excessive without providing adequate factual support.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by ordering a remittitur without conducting the necessary analysis of statutory criteria and without pointing to specific record evide…
[2] A jury's verdict on damages should not be disturbed unless it is so inordinately large as to obviously exceed the maximum limit of a reasonable range within which the jur…
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“a trial judge has broad discretion to determine whether or not a verdict is (1) against the manifest weight of the evidence or (2) was influenced by considerations outside the record”
Establishes the standard of review for verdicts, rejecting the 'competent substantial evidence' rule
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a slander action, a jury awarded respondent $80,000 in damages ($30,000 compensatory and $50,000 punitive). Petitioners moved for a new trial argui…
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 Trial Judge cases and more on FLexlaw
HATCHETT, Justice.
In this case, a district court of appeal reversed an order of remittitur, entered by the trial court, on the ground that there was competent substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict.* That decision directly conflicts with Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla.1959), wherein this court (1) rejected the “competent substantial evidence” rule; (2) held that a motion for new trial is directed to the sound discretion of the trial judge; and (3) held that a ruling on such a motion will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing of abuse of discretion. Jurisdiction vests pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution. We discharge the writ.
In an action for slander, the jury found in favor of respondent and entered a verdict in the amount of $80,000 with $30,000 allocated as compensatory damages and $50,000 as punitive damages. Petitioners, Cassat Avenue Mobile Homes, moved for a new trial, on the grounds that the verdict was excessive and could only be founded on the uncontrolled passion of the jury. The trial judge entered an order of remittitur (in lieu of an order granting new trial) in the amount of $40,000. On appeal, the First District Court reversed, finding that there was competent substantial evidence to support the original verdict.
We agree with petitioners that the First District Court of Appeal applied the wrong standard of review in arriving at its decision. In Cloud v. Fallis, supra, the “substantial evidence” rule was specifically rejected and replaced by the “broad discretion” rule. See also, Laskey v. Smith, 239 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1970), and Hodge v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 234 So. 2d 645 (Fla.1970). Both rules were recently discussed in this court’s decision in Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla.1978), (opinion filed April 4, 1978), wherein we held that a trial judge has broad discretion to determine whether or not a verdict is (1) against the manifest weight of the evidence or (2) was influenced by considerations outside the record. We also held that before an alternative order granting a new trial may be entered “either the record must affirmatively show the impropriety of the verdict or there must be an independent determination that the jury was influenced by considerations outside the record” so that effective review is possible.
The order of remittitur entered in this case states only that the verdict was excessive, and it is therefore deficient. The district court was correct in reversing the trial court’s order even though reversal was founded on an erroneous standard of review. Accordingly, the writ of certiorari is discharged.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur. OVERTON, C. J., concurs specially with an opinion.
ADKINS, J., concurs in result only.
*
Bobenhausen v. Cassat Avenue Mobile Homes, Inc., et al., 344 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
OVERTON, Chief Justice,
specially concurring.
I concur in the result. The test for overturning or remitting an excessive verdict was expressly stated in our recent decision in Bould v. Touchette, 349 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1977), wherein we stated:
In tort cases damages are to be measured by the jury’s discretion. The court should never declare a verdict excessive merely because it is above the amount which the court itself considers the jury should have allowed. The verdict should not be disturbed unless it is so inordinately large as obviously to exceed the maximum limit of a reasonable range within which the jury may properly operate. [Citations omitted.] [Emphasis supplied.] Id. at 1184-85.
The record fails to reflect that the trial judge properly applied this test.
I cannot concur with the reference in the majority opinion to Wackenhut v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla., opinion filed April 4, 1978), for the reasons expressed in my dissent therein.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Odie Bell Daniels v. Malcolm H. Weiss, M.D., 385 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…how the impropriety of the verdict or there must be an independent determination that the jury was influenced by considerations outside the record. Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla.1978); Cassat Avenue Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Bobenhausen, 363 So. 2d 1065 (Fla.1978). Further, a jury verdict should not be disturbed unless it is so inordinately large as obviously to exceed the maximum limit of a reasonable range within which the jury may properly operate. Bould v. Touchette, 349 So. 2d 1181, 1184-85 (F…
-
Lawnwood Med. Ctr. Inc. v. Samuel H. Sadow, M.D., 43 So. 3d 710 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…conclusive legal presumption of loss or damage and is alone sufficient for the jury to consider punitive damages. Commander, 156 So. at 341; see also Bobenhausen v. Cassat Ave. Mobile Homes, 344 So. 2d 279, 281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. discharged, 363 So. 2d 1065 (Fla.1978) (malice is presumed as a matter of law from the publication of such words). Therefore a finding of liability for slander per se, coupled with an express finding that the slander was intended to injure plaintiff and did in fact cause injui…
-
Westbrook v. ALL Points, 384 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…lity of the evidence or has been influenced by considerations outside the record . . . (citation omitted). The court has had recent occasion to reaffirm its adherence to the test stated in Cloud. See Cassat Avenue Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Bobenhausen, 363 So. 2d 1065 (Fla.1978); Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d (Fla.1978). [We note that a parallel test was enunciated in Griffis v. Hill, 230 So. 2d 143, 145 (Fla.1969): “The test to be applied in determining the adequacy of a verdict is whether a jury of reas…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1959)
- The Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1978)
- Dorthy Bould and Edward Simonson, Jr. v. Touchette, 349 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1977)
- Laskey v. Smith, 239 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1970)
- Hodge v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 234 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 1970)
- August L. Bobenhausen v. Cassat Ave. Mobile Homes, Inc., 344 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)