# Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Archer

> Supreme Court of Florida · November 24, 1936 · 126 Fla. 308

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3386968

## Case

- **Full name:** Winn & Lovett Grocery Company, Et Al., v. Mary Archer, Et Vir.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Florida
- **Decided:** November 24, 1936
- **Citations:** 126 Fla. 308; 171 So. 214
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Brown
- **Judges:** Brown, Davis, Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Buford
- **Cited by:** 161 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3386968

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that, to recover for a false arrest, the plaintiff must show "that the restraint was unreasonable and such as was not warranted by the circumstances"
- stating that punitive damages “are given solely as a punishment where torts are com- mitted with fraud”

## Opinion text

Brown, J.
(concurring). — 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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3386968. Public record. Not legal advice.