Lassiter v. International Union of Operating Engineers
Decision Date | 21 July 1976 |
Docket Number | Nos. 47869-47871,s. 47869-47871 |
Citation | 349 So.2d 622 |
Parties | 92 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3711, 96 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3040 Earl Lowell LASSITTER, Petitioner, v. INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, Respondent. Earl Lowell LASSITTER, Petitioner, v. Dennis WALTON, Respondent. Earl Lowell LASSITTER, Petitioner, v. INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL NO. 675, Respondent. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rex Conrad, Ronald A. FitzGerald and Paul R. Regensdorf of Fleming, O'Bryan & Fleming, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner.
Frank E. Hamilton, III of Hamilton, Douglas & Bennett, Tampa, Woll, Mayer & Gold, Washington, D.C., Cone, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson & McKeown, and Larry Klein, West Palm Beach, for respondents.
Petitions for writ of certiorari have been granted in this cause, and oral argument has been dispensed with.
The decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, 325 So.2d 408, here under review is quashed with directions that the judgments entered in the trial court be reinstated.
ON REHEARING
By petition for certiorari, we have for review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, (International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 675 v. Lassitter, 325 So.2d 408). This case has plowed through a slow, rough road of judicial labor, culminating in our quashal of the District Court decision and, now, by granting respondents' petition for rehearing.
An action was brought by Lassitter against union member Walton, the Local union and the International union for injuries sustained in union violence. The jury found for petitioner Lassitter and assessed compensatory damages of $240,000 jointly and severally against all of the defendants. The jury also awarded punitive damages in the amount of $10,000 against Walton, $300,000 against the Local union and $700,000 against the International union. Upon appeal, the finding of liability was affirmed but the verdicts for compensatory and punitive damages were reversed. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 675 v. Lassitter, 295 So.2d 634 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974).
All parties then filed petitions for certiorari in this Court. The defendants' petitions were from that portion of the decision of the District Court affirming the liability and plaintiff Lassitter's petition was from that portion of the opinion reversing the damages. The defendants' cross-petitions for writ of certiorari were denied, but this Court granted plaintiff Lassitter's petition and quashed the decision of the Fourth District Court "insofar as it is inconsistent with Rinaldi v. Aaron, 314 So.2d 762, 79 A.L.R. 3d 1132." The cause was then remanded for further proceedings consistent therewith. Lassitter v. Walton, 314 So.2d 761 (Fla.1975). This decision was brief, but confusing.
In a subsequent decision, upon our mandate, the District Court pointed out that the original opinion did three basic things: (1) affirmed the judgments as to liability; (2) reversed and remanded for a new trial on the issue of compensatory damages; and (3) reversed and remanded for a new trial on the issue of punitive damages. The District Court reasoned that numbers one and two stood undisturbed, but expressed deep concern as to their proper course of action in complying with our mandate to quash the opinion insofar as it was inconsistent with Rinaldi v. Aaron, supra. The District Court then said:
" " 325 So.2d at 409-10.
The District Court then said:
The holding that there should be some reasonable relationship between punitive and compensatory damages is in conflict with the decision in Levine v. Knowles, 197 So.2d 329, 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967) and Hutchinson v. Lott, 110 So.2d 442, 445 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959). We have jurisdiction.
In Hutchinson v. Lott, supra, it was said:
The court in Air Line Employees Ass'n International v. Turner, 291 So.2d 670 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), construed the quoted language in Hutchinson as not being dispositive of the issue and then decided that a jury is not authorized to award punitive damages in "a sum which does not bear some reasonable relation to the compensatory damages awarded, and which is excessively out of relation to the latter." 291 So.2d 670 at 672. In Lan-Chile Airlines, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 296 So.2d 498 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), the court relying on Hutchinson and Turner, directed a remittitur of a portion of a punitive damage award that was forty-four times the amount of the compensatory damages. Text writers acknowledge that there is a diversity of opinion among the jurisdictions whether punitive damages must bear a reasonable relation to the compensatory damages awarded, but conclude that Florida is aligned with those jurisdictions which require such a relationship. See 22 Am.Jur.2d Damages § 265, and cases collected thereunder.
Federal courts have come to conflicting conclusions in attempting to discern the Florida rule on the subject. Judge Hutcheson writing for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Scalise v. National Utility Service, 120 F.2d 938, 941 (5th Cir. 1941), stated:
"In Florida as in the federal courts, the giving of punitive damages is not dependent upon, nor must it bear any relation to the allowance of actual damages . . . ."
Then in Crowell-Collier Pub. Co. v. Caldwell, 170 F.2d 941 (5th Cir. 1948), the same judge opined that exemplary or punitive damages awarded must bear some, though not an exact relation to actual damages.
The next pronouncement by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on the subject is found in Smith v. McNulty, 293 F.2d 924, 926 (5th Cir. 1961):
Finally, in Wynn Oil Co. v. Purolator Chemical Corp., 403 F.Supp. 226 (N.D.Fla.1974), a federal district judge sitting in Florida stated:
The terms compensatory and actual damages have been used interchangeably by the courts in dealing with the problem at hand. This probably stems from the language in McLain v. Pensacola Corp., 152 Fla. 876, 13 So.2d 221 (1943), approving and applying the following quotation from 4 Am.Jur. 219:
"The general rule that exemplary or punitive damages are not recoverable in an action of tort unless actual damages are shown finds application in cases of assault and battery." 13 So.2d at 222.
The Court in McLain, supra, held that the failure to submit the issue of punitive damages to a jury was not ground for reversal where the jury found no liability on the underlying cause of action, because an action for punitive damages cannot be maintained independently of an action for compensatory damages. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nappe v. Anschelewitz, Barr, Ansell & Bonello
...damage award when "actual damages have been sustained, the extent of which cannot be determined"); Lassitter v. International Union of Operating Eng'rs., 349 So.2d 622, 626 (Fla.1977) (supervisor victim of union violence; "nominal" damages are "actual" damages for purpose of supporting an a......
-
Alexander & Alexander, Inc. v. B. Dixon Evander & Associates, Inc., 1920
...Ramona Manor Convalescent Hospital v. Care Enterprises, 177 Cal.App.3d 1120, 225 Cal.Rptr. 120 (1986); Lassitter v. Intern. Union of Op. Engin., 349 So.2d 622 (Fla.1977); Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Brown, 258 Ga. 115, 365 S.E.2d 827 (1988); Ford v. Guarantee Abstract & Title Co., Inc., 220 Ka......
-
Pulla v. Amoco Oil Co.
...901, 907 (D.C.1988); Adler v. Seligman of Florida, Inc., 438 So.2d 1063, 1067 (Fla.Dist. Ct.App.1983); Lassitter v. Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs, 349 So.2d 622, 625-26 (Fla.1976); Hospital Auth. of Gwinnett Co. v. Jones, 261 Ga. 613, 409 S.E.2d 501, 503 (1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 109......
-
Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty
...decisions, e. g., Turner and Rodriguez, supra, this requirement has been repudiated recently by this Court in Lassitter v. Intern. Union of Op. Engin., 349 So.2d 622 (Fla.1976). For the reasons expressed in Lassitter, it is not required that punitive damages must bear some reasonable relati......
-
Florida tightens its restrictions on class action lawsuits.
...[sections]768.734(1)(b)2. (14) FLA. STAT. [sections]768.734(2). (15) Id. (16) See Lassiter v. International Union of Operating Engineers, 349 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 1976); Fain v. Cartwright, 182 So. 302 (Fla. (17) Fabricant v. Sears Roebuck, 202 F.R.D. 310, 317, 319-20 (S.D. Fla. 2001). (18) See......