City of Hialeah v. Hutchins, 63-603
| Decision Date | 23 June 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 63-603,63-603 |
| Citation | 166 So.2d 607 |
| Parties | CITY OF HIALEAH, a municipality, and O. Harris, Appellants, v. James HUTCHINS, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Ralph F. Miles, Hialeah, for appellants.
Alfred Gustinger, Jr., Irving Whitman and Kenneth L. Ryskamp, Miami, for appellee.
Before CARROLL, HORTON and TILLMAN PEARSON, JJ.
The appellants were the defendants below and appeal a final judgment rendered upon jury verdicts in an action for personal injuries. These injuries grew out of an assault and battery committed upon appellee by appellant Harris, a police officer employed by the appellant city.
The jury returned four separate verdicts in the cause. The first verdict was in favor of the appellee and against the appellant Harris for compensatory damages in the sum of $1,227.25. The second verdict was in favor of the appellee and against the appellant Harris for punitive damages in the sum of $5,000. The third verdict was in favor of the appellee and against the appellant city for compensatory damages in the sum of $32,627.25, and the fourth verdict was in favor of the appellee and against the appellant city for punitive damages in the sum of zero dollars. After the entry of the judgment, the court, on the appellants' motions, granted a new trial and an appeal from that order was prosecuted to this court. This court reversed the order granting a new trial upon the ground that no reasons had been stated in the order as required by the statute as a basis, for granting the order. 1 After the mandate of this court and reinstatement of the judgment, the appellants took this appeal.
Four questions are posed by the appellants for reversal, i. e., (1) whether there appears fundamental error in the court's entry of final judgment on defective verdicts; (2) whether the evidence was insufficient to sustain a verdict against the appellant city for $32,627; (3) whether the evidence sustained the granting of a new trial; and (4) whether the city was responsible for the acts of the police officer in committing an alleged assault and battery upon the appellee. The appellee contends that there is only one question involved and that is whether the court erred in reserving ruling on appellants' motion for directed verdict at the close of all the evidence. We elect to discuss only the first point urged by appellants, i. e., whether there appears to be fundamental error in the entry of final judgment on the verdicts.
As would appear from the previous description of the verdicts rendered, there is a disparity in amounts between the verdicts for compensatory damages against both appellants. Obviously the jury did not intend to return a verdict for any damages punitive in nature against the appellant city for it so indicated by its verdict. 2
The liability of the city here is admittedly vicarious and is based upon the doctrine of respondeat superior. The Supreme Court of this state in Hargrove v. Town of Cocoa Beach, Fla.1957, 96 So.2d 130, parted with the doctrine of municipal immunity and held that a municipality could be held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the negligent acts of its employees committed in the course and scope of their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
ESTATE OF UNDERWOOD v. NATL. CREDIT UNION
...doctrine of respondeat superior, the Credit Union's liability was based exclusively upon West's actions. See, e.g., City ofHialeah v. Hutchins, 166 So.2d 607, 609 (Fla. 1964) ("a judgment against an active tortfeasor establishes the full limit of liability against other persons who are only......
-
Cheney v. Dade County
...Fla.App.1963, 155 So.2d 829, cert. discharged, 172 So.2d 435; Fisher v. City of Miami, Fla.App.1964, 160 So.2d 57; City of Hialeah v. Hutchins, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 607; Shipp v. City of Miami, Fla.App.1963, 172 So.2d 618; Evanoff v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla.App.1966, 186 So.2d 68." T......
-
Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indian River County
...DCA 1975), Cert. discharged, 339 So.2d 632 (Fla.1976); City of Tampa v. Davis, 226 So.2d 450 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969); City of Hialeah v. Hutchins, 166 So.2d 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); Simpson v. City of Miami Beach, 155 So.2d 829 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963); Thompson v. City of Jacksonville, 130 So.2d 105 (......
-
My Sister's Place v. City of Burlington
...an interpretation of a particular federal statute, and the court so restricted its holding. Id. at 395 n.7. City of Hialeah v. Hutchins, 166 So.2d 607 (Dist.Ct.App.Fla. 1964), also cited by defendant, does not raise the issue of how an employee's immunity affects a city's The immunity waive......