SOUTHERN UTILITIES COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
MAMIE DAVIS, BY B. C. MOORE, HER NEXT FRIEND, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
Southern Utilities Company appealed a $14,000 wrongful death judgment against it for the death of J.C. Davis, claiming contributory negligence, excessiveness of damages, and insufficiency of evidence. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the liability finding but found the damages award excessive based on the deceased's earning capacity and prospects, conditioning affirmance on the plaintiff accepting a $4,000 remittitur.
The court affirmed liability but found the $14,000 verdict excessive based on the deceased's earning capacity and prospects. The judgment would stand affirmed for $10,000 only if the plaintiff accepted a $4,000 remittitur within thirty days; otherwise a new trial would be granted.
“the question of the amount of damages recoverable in an action for death by wrongful act is one peculiarly within the province of the jury and their finding will not be set aside as excessive unless it is the result of passion or prejudice or unless the Court can clearly see that the jury have committed some palpable error”
Establishes the standard for appellate review of damage awards in wrongful death cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJ.C. Davis died due to negligence by Southern Utilities Company. Mamie Davis, his widow, recovered a $14,000 judgment. A prior judgment of $18,000 in …
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 Excessiveness Of Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
Mamie Davis recovered a judgment in the sum of $14,000 against Southern Utilities Company for the negligent death of her husband, J. C. Davis. A former judgment in the sum of $18,000 was reversed by this Court for insufficiency of evidence to support it. Southern Utilities Company v. Davis, 83 Fla. 366, 92 So. 683. Reversal is now sought on the ground of contributory negligence, excessiveness of the verdict, insufficiency of the evidence to support it, and for other grounds immaterial to mention here.
We have considered all the assignments carefully and while there is substantial evidence tending to prove contributory negligence the jury has twice resolved this theory against the plaintiff in error and it is not made to appear that their finding in this was the result of passion, prejudice, partiality or corruption.
The ride is well supported by the authorities that the question of the amount of damages recoverable in an action for death by wrongful act is one peculiarly within the province of the jury and their finding will not be set aside as excessive unless it is the result of passion or prejudice or unless the Court can clearly see that the jury have committed some palpable error or have totally mistaken the rules of law by which the damages in the particular case were to be measured. Ross v. Texas & C. R. Co., 44 Fed. 44; Harkins v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 52 Fed. 724; Southern Pacific Co. v. Wilson, 10 Ariz. 162, 85 Pac. 401; Bowen v. Sierra Lumber Co., 3 Cal. App. 312, 84 Pac. 1010; Bradley v. Sattler, 156 Ill. 603, 41 N. E. 171; Louisville & C. R. Co. v. Cox (Ky.), 125 S. W. 1056; Gamache v. Johnson Tin Foil &c. Co., 116 Mo. App. 596, 92 S. W. 918; Yergy v. Helena Light & Power Co., 39 Mont. 213, 18 Ann. Cas. 1201 note 1209 citing many cases.
The evidence is ample to show liability as alleged but it is not satisfactory as to the amount of damages awarded considering the shown earning capacity of the deceased. On this holding defendant in error was entitled to compensatory damages, but on the showing made by the record as to the habits, character, conduct, business capacity, experience, present and future prospects for business success of the deceased we think the verdict was excessive. Yergy v. Helena Light & Ry. Co. et al., 39 Mont. 213, 18 Ann. Cas. 1201 note 1209.
The judgment of the Court is that if the defendant in error within thirty days after the mandate of this court in the cause is filed in the court below shall enter a remittitur of the sum of $4,000 the judgment will stand affirmed for the remainder of $10,000. Otherwise, the judgment of the Circuit Court will stand reversed and a new trial awarded. Florida C. & P. R. Co. v. Foxworth, 41 Fla. 1, 25 So. 338, 79 Am. St. Rep. 149. See same case 45 Fla. 278, 34 So. 270. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Scott, 102 So. 828; Tampa Electric Co. v. Weatherford, decided this term.
It is so ordered.
West, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Strum and Brown, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Watson, 103 Fla. 477 (Fla. 1931)…mittitur of $300.00 as of the date of the judgment, the judgment shall stand affirmed for $264.00, otherwise the [*487] judgment will stand reversed for a new trial. See St. Johns Electric Co. v. Lawler, 90 Fla. 188, 105 So. 818; S. U. Co. v. Davis, 90 Fla. 168, 105 So. 315; Tampa Electric Co. v. Bryant, supra; Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Henderson, supra. Per Curiam. The record in this cause having been considered by the Court, and the foregoing opinion prepared under Chapter 14553, Acts of 1929 (E…
-
Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Clay, 586 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…s companionship and parental influence, see 17 Fla.Jur.2d Death § 41 (1980); § 768.21(3), Fla.Stat. (1989), is one which may be properly assessed only by the representative of the community as a whole, the jury. See Southern Utilities Co., v. Davis, 90 Fla. 168, 105 So. 315 (1925). Given the extensive and heart-rending evidence of the particular relationships between these children and these fathers, we cannot say that any one of the $800,000 awards is too much. To do so would amount to the totally unaccep…
-
Tampa Elec. Co. v. Bryant, 101 Fla. 204 (Fla. 1931)…nd dollars as of the date of the judgment, the judgment shall stand affirmed for eight thousand dollars, otherwise the judgment will stand reversed for a new trial. See St. Johns Electric Co. vs. Lawler, 90 Fla. 188, 105 So. 818; S. U. Co. v. Davis, 90 Fla. 168, 105 So. 315. It is so ordered. Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur. Buford, C.J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.…
Authorities Cited
- The Fla. Cent. & Peninsular R.R. Co. v. Foxworth, 41 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1899)
- Fla. Cent. & Peninsular R.R. Co. v. Foxworth, 45 Fla. 278 (Fla. 1903)
- S. Utils. Co. v. Davis, 83 Fla. 366 (Fla. 1922)