Dodson v. Solomon

• Decision Date: 14 October 1938
• Citation: 183 So. 825,134 Fla. 284
• Parties: DODSON v. SOLOMON.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

183 So. 825

134 Fla. 284

DODSON v. SOLOMON.

Florida Supreme Court, Division B.

October 14, 1938

Rehearing Denied Nov. 3, 1938.

Error to Circuit Court, Hillsborough County; Harry N. Sandler Judge.

Action by O. K. Dodson against Rudolph Solomon, doing business as Walk-Over Bootery, for false imprisonment. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

COUNSEL Wm. C. McLean, of Tampa, for plaintiff in error.

Samuel Feinberg and O. P. Hilburn, both of Tampa, for defendant in error.

OPINION

CHAPMAN Justice.

This case is here on writ of error to a final judgment in behalf of the defendant in the court below. The declaration is in two counts, viz.:

'1. For that the defendant on to-wit, the --- day of October 1937, in Hillsborough County, Florida, caused and procured one Smith, a policeman of the City of Tampa, Florida, to make an assault with force and arms upon the plaintiff, and the plaintiff, at the direction or request of the defendant, was given into custody of said policeman and was compelled to go in and along divers public streets, to a certain police office in said City and was then and there imprisoned and detained in prison there, without any reasonable or probable cause whatsoever, for the space of thirty minutes then next following, contrary to the laws of this State, and against the will of the plaintiff; whereby the plaintiff was then and there not only greatly injured in his credit and reputation but was exposed to public scandal, infamy and disgrace and/other wrongs the defendant to him, the plaintiff, then and there did; against the peace of the people of this State and to the damage of the plaintiff in the sum of $5,000.00. And the plaintiff also sues for punitive damages and alleges that the matters and things herein complained of were wickedly, wilfully wantonly and maliciously done by the defendant to bring the plaintiff into public disgrace and injury to his credit and circumstances.

'2. That on to-wit, the --- day of October, 1937, the defendant gave plaintiff in custody of a policeman and caused him to be imprisoned in a police office.

'Wherefore plaintiff sues and demands judgment against the defendant and claims damages in the sum of $5,000.00.'

The case went to trial on pleas: (1) not guilty; (2) plaintiff was unlawfully taking and carrying away defendant's property when he requested police protection; (3) defendant requested aid of a police officer to prevent the commission of a crime, to-wit, larceny on the part of the plaintiff.

The lower court sustained a motion at the conclusion of plaintiff's case, for a directed verdict, and a motion for a directed verdict, and a motion for a new trial was made and by the lower court denied. It is contended here that the lower court committed reversible error in directing a verdict for the defendant. The evidence shows that the plaintiff by trade was a painter and the defendant sold at retail shoes in the City of Tampa. Plaintiff painted and decorated the store of the defendant, when the defendant owed approximately $20 to the plaintiff for his services. The plaintiff bought merchandise of the defendant to cover the amount due him by the defendant when a dispute arose between them about the payment of an item which plaintiff had in his possession--plaintiff contending he had paid for the item and it had been charged against his account for services rendered, while the defendant was just as emphatic that the item in dispute had not been included in the settlement. The plaintiff was about to leave defendant's place of business with the disputed item of merchandise in his possession when defendant called a police officer, who took the plaintiff and his wife to the police station and the officer there in charge, after hearing each side of the dispute or controversy, discharged the plaintiff and he was not prosecuted for taking the item of merchandise.

The item was redelivered at the police station at Tampa by the plaintiff to the defendant, but shortly thereafter a similar article was delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff, and from this transaction it is contended that the defendant was wrong from the beginning of the transaction. The law seems to be that in order to recover for false arrest of the person, it must be shown that the restraint was unreasonable and such as was not warranted by the circumstances. See Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Archer, 126 Fla. 308, 171 So. 214; Camp v. Silas, 113 Fla. 323, 151 So. 706; Fisher v. Payne, 93 Fla. 1085, 113 So. 378.

In the case of S. H. Kress & Co. v. Powell, Fla., 180 So 757, this Court, speaking through ...