context: The defendants contend that the evidence of the drug deal affected the jury's verdict on both punitive and compensatory damages. Although it is not clear whether the evidentiary error discussed above necessarily vitiated the compensatory damage award entered against the defendants, we believe the proper remedy would be to require a new trial on all issues.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 231 So.2d 532, 536
citation_a.parenthetical: stating that "better practice and procedure requires that one jury determine both the compensatory and punitive damages"
citation_a.sentence: See White v. Burger King Corp., 433 So.2d 540 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); see also DuPuis v. 79th Street Hotel, Inc., 231 So.2d 532, 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970) on reh’g (stating that “better practice and procedure requires that one jury determine both the compensatory and punitive damages”).
citation_b.signal: but see
citation_b.parenthetical: remanding only for a new trial on punitive damages where the plaintiff alleged no error in the trial on compensatory damages nor the specific amount of the award
citation_b.sentence: But see Stephens v. Rohde, 478 So.2d 862 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (remanding only for a new trial on punitive damages where the plaintiff alleged no error in the trial on compensatory damages nor the specific amount of the award).