Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

291 So. 2d 26

Brickman v. Garrido

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided February 12, 1974

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1974-02-12

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently December 1985

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“"Although the plaintiff's out-of-pocket expenses were not large ($960.00), the other elements of damage in such action, sustained and suffered by the plaintiff as shown in the evidence, were of the kind for which determination of the amount to be awarded therefor could not be made by mathematical formula, and the valuation to be placed thereon was a matter within the province of the jury. The trial judge declined to reduce the compensatory damage award when importuned to do so. No sufficient reason has been shown for this court to determine otherwise." 291 So.2d 26 .”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Odoms v. Travelers Ins. Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1974-02-12

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

CARROLL, Judge.

¶1In this action for malicious prosecution the plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages. The cause was tried before a jury. The court directed a verdict for the plaintiff on liability, and the issues relating to damages were submitted for jury determination. By the verdict rendered the plaintiff was awarded $18,000 compensatory damages and $2,000 punitive damages. Judgment was entered thereon and the defendant appealed.-

¶2On consideration of the record and briefs, we hold to be without merit the contention of the appellant that the compensatory damages awarded were excessive and not supportable on the evidence. The unsuccessful prosecution, which was the basis for this action, was for grand larceny. On the facts relating thereto as established in evidence in the trial of this case, it appeared the institution of such prosecution by the defendant was patently without probable cause. Although the plaintiff’s out-of-pocket expenses were not large ($960.00), the other elements of damage in such action, sustained and suffered by the plaintiff as shown in the evidence, were of the kind for which determination of the amount to be awarded therefor could not be made by mathematical formula, and the valuation to be placed thereon was a matter within the province of the jury. The trial judge declined to reduce the compen*27satory damage award when importuned to do so. No sufficient reason has been shown for this court to determine otherwise.

¶3Affirmed.

/291/so2d/26 · .json · Public domain