Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Winn Lovett Grocery Co. v. Archer, (1936)

Court: Supreme Court of Florida Number:  Visitors: 20
Judges: DAVIS, J.
Attorneys: Kay, Ragland Kurz, for Plaintiffs in Error; Will O. Murrell, for Defendants in Error.
Filed: Nov. 24, 1936
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 310 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 311 Mary Archer, joined by her husband, A.E. Archer, instituted this action at law against Winn Lovett Grocery Company for assault and battery and false imprisonment. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plainti
More

While concurring generally in the well considered opinion of Mr. Justice DAVIS, there is one expression which indicates that vindictive damages do not fall within the same class with exemplary or punitive damages. I think our case of Smith v. Bagwell, properly construed, means that exemplary, punitive and vindictive damages are all one class of damages. See also R.C.L. 579, 17 C.J. 968. Broadly speaking, in cases of this kind, there are only two classes of recoverable damages, compensatory and exemplary. Compensatory damages are frequently referred to as "actual" damages, 8 R.C.L. 427, and mental suffering caused by the wrongful act of the defendant is one of the elements of compensatory damages. Smith v. Bagwell, supra; 8 R.C.L. 521. *Page 333

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer