Hauser Motor Co., Inc. v. Byrd
| Decision Date | 05 December 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-1306,78-1306 |
| Citation | 377 So.2d 773 |
| Parties | HAUSER MOTOR COMPANY, INC., Karl Hauser and Ron Rogers, Appellants, v. Kathleen A. BYRD, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Edna L. Caruso, West Palm Beach, and Magill, Sevier & Reid, P. A., Palm Beach, for appellants.
William C. Sprott, Palm Beach, for appellee.
Plaintiff, appellee, filed her complaint for damages in three counts against the defendant corporation, Hauser Motor Company, Inc., and against Karl Hauser, individually, the first count seeking damages for violation of Chapter 501, Part II, Florida Statutes (1975), known as the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. 1 Therein it was alleged that plaintiff had purchased a vehicle from defendants which had been represented to have been driven some 2,357 miles as a demonstrator and/or a little-used car when in fact the automobile had been driven in excess of 12,000 miles; it was also alleged that there were misrepresentations in regard to the condition of the vehicle, both mechanically and structurally. Count II sought damages for fraud and deceit for altering the odometer of the vehicle to reflect a lower mileage.
Defendants' answer was essentially a general denial and set forth the affirmative defense that the alleged odometer change was accomplished by the intentional acts of third parties.
The cause came on for trial. It was undisputed at trial that the vehicle was sold with an incorrect mileage reading. The jury was given three verdict forms, one in favor of both defendants, one in favor of plaintiff and against the corporation, and one in favor of plaintiff and against Karl Hauser. The jury returned a verdict solely in favor of plaintiff and against the corporation, Hauser Motor Company, Inc., assessing compensatory damages in the amount of no dollars and assessing punitive damages in the amount of $1,500.
Plaintiff filed a motion for new trial, and defendants filed a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto based upon the contention that the jury having determined that plaintiff had suffered no compensatory damages, plaintiff could recover no punitive damages. The trial court subsequently denied defendants' motion, but granted plaintiff's motion as to both defendants, finding that "(t)he verdict of the jury failing to award compensatory damages is clearly against the manifest weight of the evidence." It is from said order that the defendants appeal.
Defendants urge in their first point that the court erred in granting plaintiff's motion for new trial as to Hauser Motor Company in finding that the verdict was clearly against the manifest weight of the evidence, and in denying their motion for JNOV.
The finding of the court, defendants insist, is deficient pursuant to Wackenhut Corporation v. Canty, 359 So.2d 430 (Fla.1978), which holds that an order for new trial must give reasons which will support a conclusion that the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence or was influenced by considerations outside the record. The court in Wackenhut, finding that the trial court's order for new trial therein was deficient because it did not contain reference to the record in support of its conclusion (that remittitur of a punitive damage award was necessary to cure the excessiveness of the punitive damage verdict), nevertheless, made an independent review of the record in search of support of that conclusion. See Robinson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 367 So.2d 708 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), wherein the court examined the record.
Later in its opinion, the court in Wackenhut said:
Since no basis appears in the record which would lead to the conclusion that the punitive damage award is excessive, the District Court was correct in reversing the trial court's order for new trial even though the District Court articulated an erroneous standard for review.
Accordingly, we reaffirm the Cloud (Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So.2d 669 (Fla.1969)) rule as this Court has applied it in Laskey (Laskey v. Smith, 239 So.2d 13 (Fla.1970)) to orders for new trial which are entered as alternatives to remittiturs. Before such an alternative order may be entered either the record must affirmatively show the impropriety of the verdict or there must be an independent determination that the jury was influenced by considerations outside the record.
An additional problem here is the form of the verdict entered against the corporation; it was defective and improper. In Sonson v. Nelson, 357 So.2d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), the trial court was affirmed where verdicts assessed no compensatory damages for any of the plaintiffs but did assess punitive damages. Upon defendant's motion for new trial the trial court had determined that the verdicts were defective and granted a new trial on that ground. In Flood v. Ware, 363 So.2d 1101 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978) where the jury awarded appellant punitive damages against an individual, and compensatory and punitive damages against a corporation, the court held on appeal from the judgment that the verdict against the individual...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gregg v. U.S. Industries, Inc.
...13 So.2d 221 (1943); Hanft v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 402 So.2d 453 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981); Hauser Motor Co. v. Byrd, 377 So.2d 773, 775 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1979). We are now not certain. In Eglin Federal Credit Union v. Curfman, 386 So.2d 860, 862 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1980), the ......
-
Wallace v. P. L. Dodge Memorial Hospital
...defers the matter until final hearing. City of Coral Gables v. Baljet, 250 So.2d 653 (Fla.3d DCA 1971).3 But see Hauser Motor Co., Inc. v. Byrd, 377 So.2d 773 (Fla.4th DCA 1979), and Robinson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 367 So.2d 708 (Fla.3d DCA 1979), holding that Wackenhut did not change the ru......
-
Ault v. Lohr
...are awarded." Id. See also American Motorcycle Institute, Inc. v. Mitchell, 380 So.2d 452 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Hauser Motor Co. v. Byrd, 377 So.2d 773 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). On the other hand, the First District, in Eglin Federal Credit Union v. Curfman, 386 So.2d 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), hel......
-
Rollins, Inc. v. Heller
...independent basis such as fraud. See Bert Smith Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Franklin, 400 So.2d 1235 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Hauser Motor Co. v. Byrd, 377 So.2d 773 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). In the present case, the trial court specifically found in favor of Rollins on the Hellers' claim of fraud. Since no ......
-
The florida deceptive and unfair trade practices act and other florida consumer protection laws
...to a claim by a plaintiff under DUTPA against a car dealer for not disclosing an odometer change. [ Hauser Motor Co., Inc. v. Byrd , 377 So. 2d 773, 774 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).] Failure to mitigate damages is a defense to a DUTPA claim. [ Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. Fort Myers Total Rehab. C......
-
The unexplored territory of unfairness in Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
...(state actions) refers to evidentiary determinations by "trier of fact," implying bench trial. [50] E.g., Hauser Motor Co. v. Byrd, 377 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1979); Deltona, 392 So. 2d 976; Urling, 468 So. 2d 451; Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet v. Savage, 570 So. 2d 306,308 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1......