Opinion ID: 1680227
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did the lower court err in refusing Instruction D-6?

Text: Instruction D-6 required the appellee to prove punitive damages beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty. Appellant argues that the same degree of proof is required for punitive damages as in a criminal case to prove the guilt of an accused. Although the damages are by way of penalizing the defendant against whom they are sought, the proof is by a preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond reasonable doubt, and there is no merit in such contention. In Allen v. Ritter, supra , the Court said: This instruction could easily be confusing to the jury, and moreover, it omits the fact that the question of malice is to be determined `from a preponderance of the evidence.' 235 So.2d at 256-257.