Lohr v. Byrd
| Decision Date | 14 April 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 68836,68836 |
| Parties | , 13 Fla. L. Weekly 266 James H. LOHR, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. Hattie Mae BYRD, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Richard A. Sherman and Rosemary B. Wilder of the Law Offices of Richard A. Sherman, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for petitioners.
Roy B. Dalton, Jr. of Dalton & Provencher, P.A., Orlando, and Marcia K. Lippincott of the Law Offices of Marcia K. Lippincott, P.A., Orlando, for respondent.
Russell S. Bohn of the Law Offices of Edna L. Caruso, P.A., West Palm Beach, amicus curiae for Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers.
This is a petition to review Byrd v. Lohr, reported at 488 So.2d 138 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), in which the Fifth District Court of Appeal held that punitive damages may be charged against a tortfeasor's estate. The district court expressed concern with its holding and certified the following question as one of great public importance:
MAY PUNITIVE DAMAGES BE AWARDED AGAINST A DECEASED TORTFEASOR'S ESTATE? 488 So.2d at 140. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla.Const. We answer the question in the negative and hold that a decedent's innocent heirs should not be punished when the wrongdoer is unavailable because of death. In so holding, we join the majority of jurisdictions in this country that have considered this issue.
The relevant facts reflect that Robert Lohr caused an automobile accident in which he was killed and the plaintiff, Byrd, was injured. Robert Lohr was intoxicated at the time of the accident, and Byrd sued Lohr's estate, seeking compensatory and punitive damages for injuries sustained in the accident. At trial, the defense unsuccessfully moved for a directed verdict on the question of punitive damages. Subsequently, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Byrd for $31,000 in compensatory and $25,000 in punitive damages. The trial court granted Lohr's estate's motion for remittitur of the punitive damages and reduced the damages to $9,000 in order to avoid dissipation of the estate's assets. Byrd rejected the offer of remittitur, and the trial court entered an order granting a new trial on damages. Byrd appealed, challenging the remittitur, and Lohr cross-appealed, challenging the allowance of the award of punitive damages against the estate.
The Fifth District Court of Appeal determined it was bound by our decision in Atlas Properties, Inc. v. Didich, 226 So.2d 684 (Fla.1969). In Atlas Properties, this Court was considering the right of an estate of a decedent who was killed in an accident to recover punitive damages from the living tortfeasor. We were interpreting our survival statute in existence at that time, which is now included in section 46.021, Florida Statutes (1985). In holding that the estate could recover punitive damages from the living tortfeasor, we stated that the "clear language" of the survival statute indicating that "[n]o ... action shall die with the person" was intended to preserve an individual's right to full compensation for injuries after the injured person's death. Id. at 689. In so holding, we stated:
It appears that logic and common sense indicate that this Court should now ... allow the recovery of punitive damages under [the survival statute]. This appears to be true regardless of whether it is the tortfeasor or the injured party who dies. Certainly, this logic is more apposite when it is the injured party who dies (as we have here) rather than the actual tortfeasor.
Id. at 688 (emphasis supplied).
Although it felt bound by our decision in Atlas Properties, the Fifth District Court of Appeal determined it was unreasonable to impose punitive damages in these circumstances. The court stated:
The punishment actually is inflicted upon his heirs. Separation of the "punitive" and "exemplary" aspects of such awards is unjustified because general deterrence logically depends upon the perception of punishment suffered by the wrongdoer. When that punishment is diffused and unjustly inflicted upon the innocent, through a doctrine analogous to attainder, the deterrent effect is frustrated. It is unrealistic to suppose that such awards deter other prospective tortfeasors, especially if the criminal laws fail to do so.
Byrd v. Lohr, 488 So.2d 138, 139 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (emphasis added). We agree. The statement relied on by the Fifth District in Atlas Properties is dicta. Collecting punitive damages from a tortfeasor's estate was clearly not an issue in that case, and the respective arguments and public policy ramifications were never presented to this Court for resolution.
The majority of jurisdictions in this country have rejected imposing punitive damages under these circumstances. See, e.g., In the Matter of GAC Corp., 681 F.2d 1295 (11th Cir.1982); Barnes v. Smith, 305 F.2d 226 (10th Cir.1962); Thompson v. Petroff's Estate, 319 N.W.2d 400 (Minn.1982); Allen v. Anderson, 93 Nev. 204, 562 P.2d 487 (1977).
First, it must be understood that the plaintiffs have already been compensated for their injuries and are now seeking damages solely as punishment for the decedent's misconduct. The plaintiff below, Byrd, recognizes the absence of anyone to punish, but justifies imposing punitive damages on a deterrence rationale, seeking our approval for the reasoning stated in Stephens v. Rohde, 478 So.2d 862, 863 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), which says:
[I]f a potential tortfeasor realizes that his estate is liable to diminishment by punitive damages awards, as is his own purse while he lives, this provides an additional incentive to avoid tortious conduct.
Accepting this argument would result in our adopting a principle that would allow a decedent's widow and children to be placed on welfare for the decedent's wrong. Additionally, the view expressed in that opinion would also punish innocent creditors of a decedent's estate. Further, this view would be totally inconsistent with our holding in Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So.2d 545 (Fla.1981). We stated in Mercury Motors:
Punitive damages, however, go beyond the actual damages suffered by an injured party and are imposed only as a punishment of the defendant and as a deterrent to others.... Before an employer may be held vicariously liable for punitive damages under the doctrine of respondeat superior, there must be some fault on his part.
Id. at 549 (emphasis added). Recognizing that we are speaking about damages over and above compensatory damages, it appears that if the reasoning in Mercury Motors applies to an innocent employer who is not at fault, that same reasoning should also apply to innocent heirs who are not at fault. *
In Carraway v. Revell, 116 So.2d 16 (Fla.1959), we discussed punitive damages and stated they had "as a basic purpose the punishment of the offender ... not as compensation to the injured party but as punishment." Id. at 20 (emphasis added). If deterrence is justified in this instance, it would also be justified to require a decedent's family to pay a fine or be imprisoned for the decedent's criminal conduct. With the wrongdoer dead, there is no one to punish, and to punish the innocent ignores our basic philosophy of justice.
We find that logic, common sense, and justice dictate that this Court follow the majority of jurisdictions in this country and reject the imposition of punitive damages upon innocent heirs or creditors of a decedent's estate.
Accordingly, we answer the certified question in the negative, quash the district court's decision, and remand for further proceedings in accordance with the views expressed herein.
It is so ordered.
While there has been some abuse in the imposition of punitive damages, as long as Florida recognizes them, I cannot see why their recovery should be prohibited simply because of the fortuity that the tortfeasor has died.
In interpreting the survival statute in Atlas Properties, Inc. v. Didich, 226 So.2d 684 (Fla.1969), this Court said:
It appears that logic and common sense indicate that this Court should now ... allow the recovery of punitive damages under [the survival statute]. This appears to be true regardless of whether it is the tortfeasor or the injured party who dies. Certainly, this logic is more apposite when it is the injured party who dies (as we have here) rather than the actual tortfeasor.
Id. at 688 (emphasis supplied).
Thus, it is clear that we previously spoke on the issue before us, albeit in dictum. In addition to the court below, two other district courts of appeal have also squarely ruled the same way....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haralson v. Fisher Surveying, Inc.
...62-63). They also suggest that, in allowing punitive damages against the deceased's heirs, innocent parties are punished. Lohr v. Byrd, 522 So.2d 845, 846 (Fla.1988); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Maidment, 107 N.M. 568, 761 P.2d 446, 449 (Ct.App.1988), aff'd by Jaramillo v. Providence ......
-
Whetstone v. Binner
...other prospective tortfeasors, especially if the criminal laws fail to do so.”(Emphasis added by Florida Supreme Court.) Lohr v. Byrd, 522 So.2d 845, 846 (Fla.1988), quoting Byrd v. Lohr, 488 So.2d 138, 139 (Fla.App.1986) ; see also Doe v. Colligan, 753 P.2d 144, 146 (Alaska 1988) (“general......
-
Kraft Power Corp. v. Merrill
...Co.v. Breeden, 665 A.2d 929, 938–940 (D.C.1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1148, 117 S.Ct. 1080, 137 L.Ed.2d 215 (1997); Lohr v. Byrd, 522 So.2d 845, 846–847 (Fla.1988); Crabtree v. Estate of Crabtree, 837 N.E.2d 135, 138–140 (Ind.2005); In re Vajgrt, 801 N.W.2d 570, 573–578 (Iowa 2011); Stewa......
-
Whetstone v. Binner
...codified at Cal. Civ.Proc.Code § 377.42 (1992) ); Jonathan Woodner Co. v. Breeden, 665 A.2d 929, 938–40 (D.C.1995) ; Lohr v. Byrd, 522 So.2d 845, 846–47 (Fla.1988) ; Morris v. Duncan, 126 Ga. 467, 54 S.E. 1045, 1046–47 (1906) (subsequently codified at Ga.Code Ann. § 9–2–41 (West, Westlaw th......