Sinnamon v. Fowlkes
| Decision Date | 21 March 1958 |
| Parties | Harry SINNAMON, as Administrator of the Estate of Charles Andrew Doty, deceased, Petitioner, v. Maynard Grady FOWLKES, Jr., Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Marlow & Sinnamon, Miami, for petitioner.
Blackwell, Walker & Gray, Miami, for respondent.
Petitioner seeks to obtain review of a decision of the District Court of Appeal which reversed a judgment of the Circuit Court for Dade County entered on a verdict for plaintiff, petitioner in this Court and appellee below, including a $4,000 punitive damage award.
The verdict was returned in an action by petitioner, as administrator of the estate of a deceased, for damages under the Survival of Action Statute, F.S., Sec. 45.11, F.S.A. No question is raised at any point relative to damages awarded in the companion action under F.S., Sec. 768.01, .02, F.S.A., to recover for wrongful death. The case was presented to the jury on instructions that amounted to a directed verdict for plaintiff on the issue of liability. The court further charged the jury that there was 'no evidentiary basis for the recovery * * * of any compensatory damages under * * * Section 45.11,' but permitted the allowance of punitive damages in that action. As above stated, the verdict returned did include $4,000 attributable only to an award of punitive damages under the survival statute.
The district court applied the rule of law that some substantial actual or compensatory damages must be shown as a predicated for allowance of punitive damages, and reversed the judgment upon that point. In taking this position the court relied upon an earlier opinion of this Court as indicating sanction of the rule. McLain v. Pensacola Coach Corporation, 152 Fla. 876, 13 So.2d 221.
In the instant proceeding the petitioner necessarily proceeds under that provision of amended Article V of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A., authorizing review by certiorari in this Court of 'any decision of a district court of appeal * * * that is in direct conflict with a decision of another district court of appeal or of the Supreme Court on the same point of law * * *,' and the corresponding provision of Rule 2.1 a(5)(b) of the Florida Appellate Rules. The only ground presented by petitioner for issuance of the writ under this section lies in an alleged conflict between the decision in the instant case and the doctrine inherent in certain opinions of this Court to the effect that an element of malice in intentional torts may support recovery of damages for mental pain and anguish unconnected with physical injury. Kirksey v. Jernigan, Fla.1950, 45 So.2d 188, 17 A.L.R.2d 766; Crane v. Loftin, Fla.1954, 70 So.2d 574. Cf., as to award of damages for libel or slander per se without proof of special injury, Ross v. Gore, Fla.1950, 48 So.2d 412; Campbell v. Jacksonville Kennel Club, Fla.1953, 66 So.2d 495; Hartley & Parker v. Copeland, Fla.1951, 51...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Smith v. State
-
Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Walters, 39504
...Florida Power & Light Co. v. Bell, 122 So.2d 611; Ansin v. Thurston, Fla., 101 So.2d 808; Lake v. Lake, Fla., 103 So.2d 639; Sinnamon v. Fowlkes, Fla., 101 So.2d 375, and similar I would quash the writ as having been improvidently issued for lack of jurisdiction. ...
-
Atlas Properties, Inc. v. Didich, 37818
...should be followed unless expressly changed by statute. Fowlkes v. Sinnamon, 97 So.2d 626 (3d Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1957), cert. denied 101 So.2d 375 (Fla.1958): The 3d District Court of Appeal foreshadowed the instant decision in controversy by 'Assuming, But not deciding, that punitive as well ......
-
Fidelity Const. Co. v. Arthur J. Collins & Son, Inc., 30914
...to that announced in the opinion of the court in the case at bar. See Florida Power & Light v. Bell, Fla., 113 So.2d 697; Sinnamon v. Fowlkes, Fla., 101 So.2d 375. Under the particular circumstances the jurisdictional requirements for review by writ of certiorari in this court are thus met ......
-
Jurisdiction creep and the Florida Supreme Court.
...So. 2d 808, 810 (Fla. 1958) (citing Diamond Berk Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Goldstein, 100 So. 2d 420, 421 (Fla. 1958); Sinnamon v. Fowlkes, 101 So. 2d 375, 377 (Fla. 1958)). (13) 103 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 1958). The district court decision read in its entirety, "PER CURIAM. Affirmed." Lake v. Lake, 9......