LaFleur v. Castlewood Intern. Corp.

• Decision Date: 26 March 1974
• Docket Number: No. 73--808,73--808
• Citation: 294 So.2d 21
• Parties: Dianne LaFLEUR and Edward LaFleur, Appellants, v. CASTLEWOOD INTERNATIONAL CORP., d/b/a Big Daddy's Imperial Lounge, et al., Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 21

294 So.2d 21

Dianne LaFLEUR and Edward LaFleur, Appellants, v. CASTLEWOOD INTERNATIONAL CORP., d/b/a Big Daddy's Imperial Lounge, et al., Appellees.

No. 73--808.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 26, 1974.

Rehearing Denied May 20, 1974. Decision Vacated 326 So.2d 459.

Sepler & Sussman and Irma Hernandez, Hialeah, for appellants.

Wicker, Smith, Pyszka, Blomqvist & Davant, Bradford, Williams, McKay, Kimbrell, Hamann & Jennings, Miami, for appellees.

Before BARKDULL, C.J., and CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

HENDRY, Judge.

Appellants, plaintiffs in the trial court, seek review of an order granting the defendants a new trial on the issue of punitive damages.

Plaintiffs were awarded $10,000 in compensatory damages against both defendants and $25,000 in punitive damages against defendant Castlewood International Corp. and $500 against defendant James Holland, and employee of the corporation, at the conclusion of a jury trial. Following the jury verdict and entry of final judgment thereon, this cause came on to be heard by the trial court on defendants' motion for a new trial. The trial judge made the following written findings in the order granting a new trial:

'(a) That harmful error was committed when the jury was charged that:

"Gross negligence is the failure to use slight care. It is conduct of a person that a reasonably careful person would know probably and most likely would result in injury or damage to other persons or to property.'

'(b) That harmful error was committed when the jury was charged that:

"The second issue for your determination on the claim of the plaintiffs against the defendants is whether the defendant, Mr. Holland, was grossly negligent and whether such gross negligence was a legal cause of the injuries complained of.'

'(c) That substantial rights of the Defendants were violated to the extent that a fair trial was not had on the issue of punitive damages.'

This cause was tried upon a complaint alleging an intentional assault and battery, negligence and wanton and willful misconduct by the individual defendant, Holland, which rendered the corporation vicariously liable. The assault and battery allegation was subsequently dropped during the course of the proceeding.

The evidence presented at trial was in sharp conflict. the plaintiffs' version of the facts was as follows: Plaintiff, Dianne LaFleur, along with a female companion entered the Big Daddy's Lounge, owned by the corporate defendant, at 10:30 P.M. on May 21, 1971. Shortly before doing so, the two women testified that narrowly missed being involved in an automobile accident involving a hit-and-run driver. The women said they entered the lounge to ascertain if someone had called the police about the accident.

While in the lounge, the women stated that defendant Holland, a bouncer employed by Big Daddy's, stated to another man, 'You can have this one; I'm gonna take this one,' referring to the two women. At that point, Mrs. LeFleur and the other woman left. However, they shortly re-entered the lounge, because they were 'shaken up' due to their narrow escape from an accident, and they decided to have a drink before leaving.

Upon re-entering the lounge, the women testified that as they walked in through a hallway, Holland alighted from a stool on which he was seated, ran to Mrs. LaFleur and lifted her up almost above his head by grasping her ankles. At the same time, the women testified that they heard him exclaim, 'I have me a girl to f_ _ tonight.'

Mrs. LaFleur stated that as Holland lifted her he apparently lost his balance, and they fell to the floor. As a result, Mrs. LaFleur sustained personal injuries.

Holland's testimony was substantially different. He recalled conversing with Mrs. LaFleur the first time she entered the lounge, in cordial terms. However, Holland said that when the women re-entered for the second time, he observed a man entering behind them whom he had previously ejected. Holland stated that he jumped off the stool to pursue this man, and he bumped into Mrs. LeFleur as he ran past her. He denied making the statements the women attributed to him.

The plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in granting a new trial on the issue of punitive damages because the court was correct in instructing the jury as to gross negligence and no harmful error was committed by the giving of the instruction. This contention has merit.

Litigants are vested with a right to have instructions presented to a jury upon the law as it is applicable to the evidence in a case and according to the issues involved in the case. Wynne v. Adside, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 760. Where there is competent, substantial evidence supporting a charge, a party has the right to submit his theory of the case to a jury. Harwell v. Blake, Fla.App.1965, 180 So.2d 173.

It is appellee's position that the trial court's instructions to the jury on 'gross negligence' muddled the distinction between 'wanton and willful misconduct' and therefore misled and confused the jury on the issue of punitive damages. We cannot agree.

In reaching a determination that a jury was misled and confused by an instruction, the inquiry is whether a jury might reasonably have been misled by the instruction and whether any erroneous instruction resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Florida Power & Light Co. v. McCollum, Fla.1962, 140...