City of Miami v. Graham, 74--885

• Decision Date: 01 April 1975
• Docket Number: No. 74--885,74--885
• Citation: 311 So.2d 697
• Parties: The CITY OF MIAMI, a Municipal Corporation, Appellant, v. Raleigh L. GRAHAM, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 697

311 So.2d 697

The CITY OF MIAMI, a Municipal Corporation, Appellant, v. Raleigh L. GRAHAM, Appellee.

No. 74--885.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 1, 1975.

Rehearing Denied May 13, 1975.

John S. Lloyd, City Atty., and Montague Rosenberg, Asst. City Atty., for appellant.

Franklin D. Kreutzer, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, HAVERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The City of Miami was the defendant in an action brought by Raleigh L. Graham for an illegal arrest. At the trial of the cause before a jury, the City offered no evidence. The plaintiff Graham offered evidence which established that he was drinking in a bar when several policemen entered and arrested many of the patrons on a charge of drunkenness. He testified that he was required to take sobriety tests which he passed but that, nevertheless, he was taken to jail and booked for drunkenness and loitering. He was released after a few hours but was required to make four court appearances with the end result that the charge was dismissed. He was later re-arrested on the same charge and after two court appearances the charge was dismissed.

The testimony as to damages consisted of plaintiff's testimony and that of a treating psychiatrist. The plaintiff was employed as a postal clerk and his testimony is to the effect that he was humiliated and embarassed by the arrests. The psychiatrist revealed that the plaintiff came to him for treatment of excessive use of alcohol, that the problem was aggravated by the fact that the plaintiff is a homosexual and that, in the psychiatrist's opinion, plaintiff's experiences in being arrested could have caused or aggravated both problems. Appellant and his witness presented testimony upon which the jury could find approximately $1,000 in damages in terms of actual expenditures of time and money and approximately $4,000 in terms of future expenses for treatment of plaintiff's illnesses. A claim for punitive damages was not submitted to the jury but, upon the evidence submitted, the jury returned a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $30,000. A motion for new trial was made upon the ground of the excessiveness of the verdict but was denied.

On this appeal, the City's main point is that it had no liability under City of Miami v. Albro, Fla.App.1960, 120 So.2d 23, and Trivette v. State, Fla.App.1971, 244 So.2d 173. In our opinion, the cited cases are distinguished from the instant case in that here the testimony of the plaintiff, which the jury was entitled to believe, was as to facts which would not give the police probable cause for arrest. The City's failure to explain the basis for the arrest made it probable that the jury would accept plaintiff's testimony as to all of the circumstances. We, therefore, hold that the first point does not present reversible error.

As to appellant's second point, which urges error upon the trial court's denial of the City's motion for a new trial based upon the ground of the excessiveness of the verdict, we find error is demonstrated by this record. Inasmuch as the issue of punitive damages was not submitted to the jury, such damages could not be considered by it. And the jury must have a factual basis before it so that its members can, as reasonable men, reach the figure allowed as compensatory damages. See Berwick Corp. v. Kleinginna Investment Corp., Fla.App.1962, 143 So.2d 684. In the present...