Adams v. Whitfield
| Decision Date | 06 February 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 44219,44219 |
| Citation | 290 So.2d 49 |
| Parties | Clayton ADAMS, Petitioner, v. J. G. WHITFIELD et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Wilmer H. Mitchell, Holsberry, Emmanuel, Sheppard, Mitchell & Condon, Pensacola, for petitioner.
Robert P. Gaines, Beggs, Lane, Daniel, Gaines & Davis, Pensacola, for respondents.
Petitioner seeks certiorari review of a decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, reported at 280 So.2d 8, which conflicts with Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. et al. v. Archer et al., 126 Fla. 308, 171 So. 214 (1936); City of Hollywood v. Coley, 258 So.2d 828 (4th DCA Fla.1971), and Wrains v. Rose, 175 So.2d 75 (2d DCA Fla.1965). Although the opinion sought to be reviewed is a per curiam affirmance, conflict is apparent from the record proper; we therefore have jurisdiction. Florida Constitution, Article V, § 3(b)(3) F.S.A.; Foley v. Weaver Drugs, Inc., 177 So.2d 221 (Fla.1965). Oral argument has been dispensed with, pursuant to Rule 3.10(e), Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A.
Petitioner obtained a jury verdict, in an action for malicious prosecution, which awarded him both compensatory and punitive damages. The respondents made proper post-trial motions for a new trial and for the entry of a judgment in accordance with their prior motions for directed verdict. The trial court denied these motions, except to the extent of setting aside the judgment for punitive damages on the basis that 'there was no evidence of actual malice to sustain an award of punitive damages'. The trial court, therefore, distinguished the proof necessary to support an award of compensatory damages from that necessary to support an award of punitive damages in an action for malicious prosecution. The District Court upheld this distinction by its affirmance.
In Duval Jewelry Company v. Smith, 102 Fla. 717, 136 So. 878 (1931), this Court stated the elements of malicious prosecution to be:
'(1) The commencement or continuance of an original civil or criminal judicial proceeding; (2) its legal causation by the present defendant against plaintiff who was defendant in the original proceeding; (3) its bona fide termination in favor of the present plaintiff; (4) the absence of probable cause for such proceeding; (5) the presence of malice therein; (6) damage conforming to legal standards resulting to plaintiff. . . .'
We also stated that the element of malice need not be proven directly, but may be implied or inferred from want of probable cause. In other words, it is not necessary to prove Actual malice in order to recover for malicious prosecution; only Legal malice is necessary, and this legal malice May be inferred entirely from a lack of probable cause.
An award of punitive damages also requires only proof of Legal malice, not necessarily actual malice, and this is true whether the cause of action is for malicious prosecution, for some other tort, or for a breach of contract. With regard to punitive damages in general, this Court stated in Winn and Lovett Grocery Co. et al. v. Archer et al., Supra:
'. . . Exemplary (punitive) damages are given solely as a punishment where torts are committed with fraud, actual malice, or deliberate violence or oppression, or when the defendant acts wilfully, or with such gross negligence as to indicate a wanton disregard of the rights of others. . . .'
Therefore, in any case, punitive damages may be awarded based upon legal malice which may be inferred from, among other things, gross negligence indicating a wanton disregard for the rights...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Wade
...234 A.2d 825 (1967); Sheats v. Bowen, 318 F.Supp. 640 (Del.1970) (Delaware law); Spar v. Obwoya, 369 A.2d 173 (D.C.1977); Adams v. Whitfield, 290 So.2d 49 (Fla.1974); Randall v. Ganz, 96 Idaho 785, 537 P.2d 65 (1975); Pendowski v. Patent Scaffolding Co., 89 Ill.App.3d 484, 44 Ill.Dec. 544, ......
-
Todd v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A.
...a lack of probable cause.'" Burshan v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 805 So.2d 835, 845 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2001) (quoting Adams v. Whitfield, 290 So.2d 49, 51 (Fla.1974)). One court has stated that "[w]hether a garnishment is wrongful depends upon whether the steps taken by the parties seeking t......
-
Johns-Manville Sales Corp. v. Janssens
...a course of action in wanton disregard of the potential harm likely to result as a consequence of that wrongful conduct. Adams v. Whitfield, 290 So.2d 49 (Fla.1974); Griffith v. Shamrock Village, Inc., 94 So.2d 854 (Fla.1957); Kirksey v. Jernigan, 45 So.2d 188 Johns-Manville argues that, in......
-
Rushing v. Bosse
...the supreme court in Alamo relied on its prior opinions in Burns v. GCC Beverages, Inc., 502 So.2d 1217 (Fla.1986) and Adams v. Whitfield, 290 So.2d 49 (Fla.1974). In both Burns, 502 So.2d at 1218, and Adams, 290 So.2d at 51 (citing Duval Jewelry Company v. Smith, 102 Fla. 717, 136 So. 878 ......
-
Employment cases
...proceeding; and (2) the presence of legal malice, which “may be inferred entirely from a lack of probable cause.” Adams v. Whitfield , 290 So.2d 49, 51 (Fla. 1974); Iowa Mutual Ins. Co. v. Gulf Heating & Refrigeration Co ., 184 So.2d 705, 706 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966), quashed on other grounds , 1......