STEVENS MARKETS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND GRAY SECURITY SERVICE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
IRENE MARKANTONATOS, A MINOR, BY HER FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, NICK MARKANTONATOS, AND NICK MARKANTONATOS, INDIVIDUALLY, 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.
Stevens Markets and Gray Security Service appeal a jury verdict for false imprisonment, unlawful detention, unauthorized search, and assault and battery. The court affirms the judgment, finding no error in the trial court's decision to reinstructed the jury after receiving a defective verdict that appeared to reflect jury misunderstanding of the court's instructions.
The court held that while ordinarily a verdict of no dollars constitutes a good verdict in Florida, when it is apparent the jury has misunderstood the court's instructions and rendered a defective verdict, the court may properly reinstructs the jury and return them to the jury room to reconsider their verdict.
“when it is apparent that the jury has misunderstood the court's instructions and rendered a defective verdict, they may be reinstructed and returned to the jury room”
Establishes the exception to the general rule allowing valid verdicts of no dollars
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe minor plaintiff Irene Markantonatos and her father Nick Markantonatos brought claims against Stevens Markets and Gray Security Service for false i…
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 Unlawful Detention cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by the defendants in the trial court from an adverse jury verdict and final judgment entered thereon. The causes of action were for false imprisonment, unlawful detention, unauthorized search, and assault and battery. The appellant has preserved a number of points for review, some of which we will dispose of in reliance upon the following authorities: Esch v. Forster, 123 Fla. 905, 168 So. 229; Welch v. Gray Moss Bondholders Corporation, 128 Fla. 722, 175 So. 529; Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Archer, 1936, 126 Fla. 308, 171 So. 214; Smith v. Whidden, Fla.1956, 87 So.2d 42; Garrison v. Hertz Corporation, Fla.App.1961, 129 *52So.2d 452; David Properties, Inc. v. Selk, Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 334; Hart Properties, Inc. v. Slack, Fla.1963, 159 So.2d 236; Spencer Ladd’s, Inc. v. Lehman, Fla. App.1964, 167 So.2d 731.
A more difficult question is presented in determining the propriety of the trial court’s action upon receipt of the jury’s verdicts. As originally received, the verdicts were for the sum of No Dollars compensatory damages and $5,000.00 punitive damages for the minor plaintiff, Irene Markantonatos, and $1,500.00 compensatory damages for her father on his derivative claim. Upon the verdicts being delivered to the court by the clerk, he called counsel to the bench and indicated that the verdicts were not in accordance with the instructions given, and indicated an obvious misunderstanding by the jury of said instructions. Thereupon, he reinstructed the jury to retire and further consider the compensatory award to the minor plaintiff, without further considering the punitive damages awarded to her or the compensatory award to her father.
It appears that ordinarily a verdict of No Dollars is a good verdict in the State of Florida. See: Higbee v. Dorigo, Fla.1953, 66 So.2d 684; Bowser v. Harder, Fla.App.1957, 98 So.2d 752. However, when it is apparent that the jury has misunderstood the court’s instructions and rendered a defective verdict, they may be reinstructed and returned to the jury room. See: Rentz v. Live Oak Bank, 61 Fla. 403, 55 So. 856. Here, where it was apparent that the jury intended to award the minor plaintiff a verdict but had misinterpreted the court’s instructions and rendered a defective verdict, we find no error in the resubmission under the circumstances of this case.1 See: Covington v. Clemmons, 61 Fla. 151, 55 So. 81; Dawson v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 157 Mo.App. 642, 138 S.W. 665; Money v. Etter, 8 N.J.Super. 371, 72 A.2d 409; 89 C.J.S. Trial § 512, p. 193.
Therefore, the final judgment here under review is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. Ring, 250 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)…and GOODFRIEND, SAM, Associate Judge, concur. . F.S. § 193.461(3), F.S.A. . Walden v. Borden Company (Fla.1970), 235 So. 2d 300. .Matheson v. Elcook (Fla.App.1965), 173 So. 2d 164. . Old Equity Life Insurance Company v. Levenson (Fla.App.1965), 177 So. 2d 51.…
-
Stevens Mkts., Inc. v. Markantonatos, 189 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1966)…so ordered. ROBERTS and ERVIN, JJ., and WARREN, Circuit Judge, concur. THORNAL, C. J., dissents, no jurisdiction. O’CONNELL, J., dissents because of lack of jurisdiction. THOMAS, J., dissents and agrees with THORNAL, C. J., and O’CONNELL, J. . 177 So. 2d 51 (Fla.App.3rd 1965). . Dawson v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 157 Mo.App. 642, 138 S.W. 665 (1911). . Money v. Etter, 8 N.J.Super. 371, 72 A. 2d 409 (1950). . To like effect, although not involving punitive damage verdict, are Blain v. Yockey, 117 Co…
-
Stevens Mkts., Inc. v. Markantonatos, 189 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…PER CURIAM. WHEREAS, the judgment of this court was entered on June 22, 1965 (177 So. 2d 51) affirming the final judgment of the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and WHEREAS, on review of this court’s judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida, by its opinion and judgment filed June 29, 1966 (18…
Authorities Cited (12 total)
- Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Archer, 126 Fla. 308 (Fla. 1936)
- Duarte v. Stevens Mkts., Inc., 159 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 1963)
- Esch v. Davis Forster, 123 Fla. 905 (Fla. 1936)
- Higbee et ux. v. Dorigo, 66 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 1953)
- Rentz v. Live Oak Bank, 61 Fla. 403 (Fla. 1911)
- Welch v. Gray Moss Bondholders Corp., 128 Fla. 722 (Fla. 1937)
- Spencer Ladd's, Inc. v. Lehman, 167 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Bowser v. Harder, 98 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957)
- Covington v. Clemmons, 61 Fla. 151 (Fla. 1911)
- David Props., Inc. v. Selk, 151 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)