GRAND UNION SUPER MARKETS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, D/B/A GRAND-WAY DISCOUNT CENTER, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY L. DE AQUINOS AND ROBERT L. DE AQUINOS, HER HUSBAND, 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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal reviewed a jury verdict for false imprisonment. The court affirmed the compensatory damages award but reversed the punitive damages award due to a lack of evidence of malice or egregious conduct.
No, the evidence did not support the punitive damages award because the detention occurred after store hours and lacked evidence of malice, moral turpitude, or wanton disregard for the plaintiffs' rights.
“The verdict as to punitive damages and the final judgment thereon must be reversed, as the record on appeal fails to disclose the ingredients of malice, moral turpitude, or wanton and outrageous disregard of the plaintiffs' rights.”
Establishes the basis for reversing the punitive damages award.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellees sued for false imprisonment after being detained by Grand Union Super Markets. A jury awarded them $3,500 in compensatory damages and $5…
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 Moral Turpitude cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, who was the defendant below, seeks review of a final judgment entered upon a jury verdict, in an action for false imprisonment.
By their verdict, the jury awarded $3,500.00 as compensatory damages and $5,000.00 as punitive damages. Appellant, not having argued the sufficiency of the evidence in its brief to support the compensatory award, has abandoned any assignments of error that may have gone to this point. F.A.R. 3.7(i), 31 F.S.A.; 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, § 127. Therefore, the final judgment in this respect is affirmed.
The verdict as to punitive damages and the final judgment thereon must be reversed, as the record on appeal fails to disclose the ingredients of malice, moral turpitude, or wanton and outrageous disregard of the plaintiffs’ rights. See: 9 Fla. Jur., Damages, § 119. In the instant case, the detention took place after the appellant’s store was closed and without oppression or embarrassment to the appellees in public. The record reveals that no greater force was employed in the detention than would have been necessary had the appel-lees been guilty of the alleged theft, and such detention in and of itself will not support an award for punitive damages. Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Archer, 126 Fla. 308, 171 So. 214.
*755Therefore, this cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to eliminate from the final judgment the award for punitive damages, as no instructions on punitive damages should have been given to the jury, and the appellant's objections to any such charges should have been sustained.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Isidore Weisman v. Ada Weisman, 141 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)…uch assignments of error as are not argued in the briefs will be deemed abandoned. Rule 3.7, subd. i, Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A. See Chaachou v. Chaachou, Fla. 1961, 135 So. 2d 206; Grand Union Super Markets, Inc. v. DeAquinos, Fla.App.1961, 135 So. 2d 754. The record reveals that the appellant and the appellee are persons of mature age and have frequently found the marital road a rough one. In fact they have separated on no less than twelve occasions. After one reconciliation prior to this divorce,…
-
Montague Fred Rayne v. The Wackenhut Corp., 169 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…the points presented by the appellant claim error as co certain portions of the decree, the portions not contested will stand affirmed upon this appeal. See 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals § 382; Cf. Grand Union Super Markets, Inc. v. De Aquinos, Fla.App.1961, 135 So. 2d 754. Under this provision we must affirm the decree insofar as it granted a final judgment in favor of the defendant George R. Wack-enhut, individually. In addition paragraph “B” of the final decree which provided for a judgment in favor of the plaintif…
Authorities Cited
- Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Archer, 126 Fla. 308 (Fla. 1936)