LILYAN HOLLAND, APPELLANT,
v.
HENRIETTE P. GLASS, APPELLEE
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.
Holland appealed the trial court's order vacating a jury verdict awarding punitive damages for assault and battery committed by Glass. The court reversed, holding that malice is inherent in intentional assault and battery without legal justification, making punitive damages appropriate.
The trial court erred in vacating the punitive damages award. The intentional commission of assault and battery without legal justification supplies proof of malice as a matter of law, making punitive damages proper and within the jury's discretion.
“The very act of intentional assault and battery committed without legal justification supplies the proof of malice.”
Establishes the legal principle that malice is inherent in intentional assault and battery, making it unnecessary to separately prove malice.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHolland was employed as a seamstress by Glass. After completing work, Glass disputed the price, became angry and abusive, and assaulted Holland by sto…
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 Malice cases and more on FLexlaw
We review the timely appeal by the plaintiff from a final order vacating an award of punitive damage to her in an action of assault and battery upon her person by the Defendant — Henrietta P. Glass.
The plaintiff had been employed as a seamstress by the defendant. The record supports the plaintiff’s contention that, when the work had been completed, the defendant argued about the price, became angry, rude, and abusive, and assaulted the plaintiff by stomping her feet and kicking her ankle. Plaintiff’s injuries required medical attention. Plaintiff filed suit for *321value of work performed and for assault and battery. The defendant counterclaimed for assault and battery and false imprisonment.
The court directed a verdict for the plaintiff on the false imprisonment claim.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for value of work performed and also on the assault and battery count, awarding compensatory and punitive damages.
The court entered its order setting aside the award of punitive damages, it being the view of the court that no malice had been shown.
The very act of intentional assault and battery committed without legal justification supplies the proof of malice. Bryson v. Swank, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 833. Anderson v. Maddox, Fla.1963, 65 So.2d 299, 301.
In Wrains v. Rose, Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d 75, 79, the court held,
“ * * * [Pjunitive damages are peculiarly within the discretion of the jury as to the degree of punishment to be inflicted, dependent upon the circumstances of each case as well as upon the ‘degree of malice, wantonness, oppression, or outrage found by the jury from the evidence.’ * * * ”
The jury finding of malice in this case is supported not only by the evidence relating to defendant’s belligerent conduct, but also by the rule of law applicable to intentional assault and battery.
The trial court erred in vacating the verdict as to punitive damages. The court did not commit error in directing verdicts on defendant’s counterclaim.
Reversed with direction to reinstate the verdict as rendered by the jury and enter judgment thereon.
WALDEN, C. J., and CROSS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1978)…unt, different principles apply. If a defendant has committed an intentional assault and battery, without legal justification, the law implies the presence of malice, and punitive damages may, in proper circumstances, be recovered. Holland v. Glass, 213 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968); Bryson v. Swank, 166 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1964); Anderson v. Maddox, 65 So. 2d 299 (Fla.1953). The security guard in the present case.committed a battery on Mr. Canty. The jury apparently chose to believe Mr. Canty, who test…
-
Joab, Inc. v. Thrall, 245 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…gross negligence, or oppression on the part of the officer or agent.” * * * * * * In Florida it is clear that an act of intentional assault and battery committed without legal justification supplies proof of malice. Holland v. Glass, Fla.App.1968, 213 So. 2d 320; and Wrains v. Rose, Fla. App.1965, 175 So. 2d 75. See also Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Archer, 126 Fla. 308, 171 So. 214 (1936). The allowance of punitive damages is discretionary with a jury and the fixing of the amount is peculiarly within its…
-
Ciamar Marcy, Inc. v. Renato M. Monteiro da Costa, 508 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…ward punitive damages as punishment. See, e.g., City of Hollywood v. Coley, 258 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971) (false arrest and malicious prosecution); Joab, Inc. v. Thrall, 245 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971) (assault and battery); Holland v. Glass, 213 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968) (assault and battery); Wrains v. Rose, 175 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965) (false arrest and malicious prosecution). Second, the intentional tort of conversion, which we deal with in the instant case, does not contain malice as one…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wrains v. Rose, 175 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Anderson v. Maddox, 65 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 1953)
- Bryson v. Rollie F. Swank, 166 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)