Fisher v. City of Miami, 33402
| Citation | 172 So.2d 455 |
| Decision Date | 17 February 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 33402,33402 |
| Parties | Thomas E. FISHER, Petitioner, v. The CITY OF MIAMI, a Municipal Corporation, Thomas Marshall, and William Jackson, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Frates, Fay & Floyd and Larry S. Stewart, Miami, for petitioner.
John R. Barrett, City Atty., and John S. Lloyd, Asst. City Atty., for respondents.
Nichols, Gaither, Beckham, Colson & Spence and Alan R. Schwartz, Miami, amicus curiae.
By a petition for certiorari we have for review a decision of a District Court of Appeal which has been certified to us as one which passes upon a question of great public interest.
We must determine whether a Florida municipality is subject to an award of punitive damages in an action for an intentional tort committed by an employee while acting within the scope of his employment.
Fisher sued the City of Miami and two police officers. He claimed compensatory and punitive damages for an alleged unlawful assault. The trial judge granted the City's motion to strike the claim for punitive damages. He subsequently entered a summary final judgment for the City. The judge had the view that a municipality cannot be held liable for an intentional tort committed by its employees. On appeal, the Court of Appeal, Third District, reversed the summary judgment on the authority of its decision in Simpson v. City of Miami, Fla.App., 155 So.2d 829. It was the view of the District Court that a Florida municipality may be held liable for intentional torts committed by its employees. However, the District Court further concluded that the municipality could not be held liable for an award of punitive damages when sued for such a tort. It therefore affirmed the granting of the motion to strike. It is this decision which is now here for review. Fisher v. The City of Miami et al., 160 So.2d 57.
Since the decision contains a question which has been certified to us as one of great public interest we proceed immediately to a consideration of the merits.
The petitioner has argued primarily the punitive damages aspect of the problem. Additionally, the respondent has discussed the related problem of the liability of a municipality for an intentional wrong. By our opinion in City of Miami v. Simpson, 172 So.2d 435, filed 17 day of February 1965, we have disposed of that aspect of the instant case which involves the intentional wrong question. We there held that a Florida municipality may be held liable for an intentional tort committed by an employee while acting within the scope of his employment. We, thereffore, find here that the District Court ruled correctly in holding that municipal liability may arise out f an intentional tort committed by an employee.
We reach the punitive damages problem. The petitioner Fisher contends that a Florida municipality is now subject to punitive damages in a proper case. He relies primarily upon Hargrove v. The Town of Cocoa Beach, Fla., 96 So.2d 130, 60 A.L.R.2d 1193 and City of Miami v. McCorke, 145 Fla. 109, 199 So. 575. The respondent contends that Hargrove did not extend municipal liability to comprehend punitive damages and that McCorkle did not conclude the point.
In Hargrove we dealt with a concept of liability and certain situations out of which an obligation to pay damages might arise. Except as specifically limited, it laid aside the governmental-proprietary dichotomy and recognized a right to compensation for a wrong done. We did not there deal with the extent or amount of recovery. In setting aside the outmoded distinctions which previously had precluded recovery, we grounded our justification on the individual's right to compensation for a wrong done. The significance of Hargrove has been evidenced by its acceptance by other courts and its endorsement by the legal writers. Furthermore, three sessions of the Legislature have now intervened and there has been no legislative restriction on the Hargrove rule. We have given it further recognition by our opinion in City of Miami v. Simpson, supra.
In summary, Hargrove took cognizance of the injustices which had been produced by an antiquated concept of immunity. It proceeded to right those wrongs by clarifying the basic element of liability. It did so in the posture of allowing compensation for wrongs done. We think the results have been both salient and salutary. Despite all of this, we did not go beyond compensation as the ultimate to be achieved from the liability there imposed.
Petitioner insists that Florida is already committed to the allowance of punitive damages in the instant situation by the decision of this Court in City of Miami v. McCorkle, supra. Admittedly, the problem was involved in some measure in that decision. However, it was not there resolved. McCorkle cannot be accepted as a definitive conclusion that punitive damages are recoverable against a Florida municipality. The reason appears from the opinion. The point was raised but not settled. The McCorkle court specifically avoided a holding on the point by deciding that the jury had obviously declined to allow any punitive damages. Hence, the question of the basic allowability of such an award was not there ripe for a decision.
In proceeding to a judgment here we should recall that the primary basis for an award of damages is compensation. That is, the objective is to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc
...City of Cleveland, 41 Ohio St.2d 1, 321 N.E.2d 885 (1975); Smith v. District of Columbia, 336 A.2d 831 (D.C.App.1975); Fisher v. City of Miami, 172 So.2d 455 (Fla.1965); Brown v. Village of Deming, 56 N.M. 302, 243 P.2d 609 (1952); Town of Newton v. Wilson, 128 Miss. 726, 91 So. 419 (1922);......
-
Cauley v. City of Jacksonville
...172 So.2d 435 (Fla.1965) (based on Hargrove, municipal liability extended to intentional torts of employees). But cf. Fisher v. City of Miami, 172 So.2d 455 (Fla.1965) (municipalities not liable for punitive damages).10 Accord, Faulkner v. Allstate Ins. Co., 367 So.2d 214 (Fla.1979).11 See ......
-
Young v. City of Des Moines
...City of West Palm Beach, 383 F.2d 189, 195 (5th Cir. 1967); Smith v. District of Columbia, 336 A.2d 831 (D.C.App.1975); Fisher v. City of Miami, 172 So.2d 455 (Fla.1965); Foss v. Maine Turnpike Authority, 309 A.2d 339, 345-346 (Me.1973); Desforge v. City of West St. Paul, 231 Minn. 205, 42 ......
-
Genty v. Resolution Trust Corp.
...which the granting of such damages is supposed to make of the wrongdoer." Fisher v. Miami, 160 So.2d 57, 59 (Fla.App.1964), aff'd, 172 So.2d 455 (1965). As for retribution, a punitive damage award against the municipality "punishes" only the general public who ordinarily did not participate......
-
Recovery of mental distress damages in bad faith claims in Florida.
...are the natural, proximate, probable, or direct consequence of the insurer's bad faith actions," the court cited Fisher v. City of Miami, 172 So. 2d 455,457 (Fla. 1965), for the proposition that "the primary basis for an award of damages is compensation [and] the objective is to make the in......