Opinion
April 25, 1950.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Orange County, Frank A. Smith, J.
Frank A. Taylor, Orlando, for appellant.
Sanders McEwan, for appellee.
Appellant as plaintiff brought a common law action against defendant, appellee, claiming damages in the sum of $3,000 for the conversion of her automobile. At the trial the jury returned a verdict for damages in the sum of $1,500 on which final judgment was entered for the plaintiff. A motion for new trial was granted and the final judgment was set aside. The plaintiff appealed.
The point for determination is whether or not the trial court committed error in setting aside the final judgment and granting the new trial.
It appears from an examination of the order setting aside the final judgment and granting the new trial that the Court was actuated by the fact that he committed harmful error when he instructed the jury on the question of exemplary damages. We have examined the record however, and we have reached the conclusion that the trial court was not in error in giving the charge on this point. The size of the verdict, in the light of the evidence, does not indicate that the jury was over influenced by it.
This was one of the most wanton and prejudicial conversions that have been brought to our attention. Appellant parked her car on the street in the City of Maitland, Florida. While she was transacting business and presumably looking after personal affairs, a representative of the defendant located her car and proceeded at once to take it and contents in custody and appropriate to their use without the knowledge or consent of the appellant. It is quite true that defendant had a lien on the car but no payments were due and there was no valid reason whatever for the conversion.
The plaintiff was wilfully deprived of the use of her automobile, including interest on its value. She was required to employ counsel to prosecute this action and to undergo the annoyance incident to her abrupt and humiliating treatment. There was substantial evidence to show that appellant had the amount of the verdict invested in the automobile so the alleged error in the charge on exemplary damages was harmless for which the judgment should not have been set aside.
The judgment appealed from is therefore reversed.
Reversed.
ADAMS, C.J., and CHAPMAN, SEBRING, HOBSON and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
THOMAS, J., dissents.