TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, APPELLANT,

v.

HELEN HOWARD ET AL., APPELLEES

Citator

Cited By

• Fla. Med. Ctr., Inc. v. von Stetina, 436 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
  …Fla. 4th DCA 1981), Much has been written regarding the review of verdict amounts but few definitive rules have been enunciated by the courts. See Bould v. Touchette, 349 So. 2d 1181 (Fla.1977) and School Board of Palm Beach County, Inc. v. Taylor, 365 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). One rule is definitive, however, and that is “a party who assails the amount of a verdict as excessive has the burden of showing it is unsupported by the evidence or that the jury was influenced by passion or prejudice.” See Ta…
• Knoizen v. Jenina M. Bruegger, 713 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
  …thy to inflate the recovery of damages, and that it went well beyond the scope of the evidence and issues presented. Moreover, she urges, the argument was an attempt to inflame the passions of the jury. See School Bd. of Palm Beach County v. Taylor, 365 So. 2d 1044, 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) (holding the plaintiffs argument was, in effect, argument for punitive damages). Accord Russell, Inc. v. Trento, 445 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). We disagree. To warrant reversal on the ground that a closing argument was…
• Corbett v. Seaboard Coastline R.R. Co., 375 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
  …ur when the verdict is so inordinately large as obviously to exceed the maximum limit of a reasonable range within which the jury may operate. See Bould v. Touchette, 349 So. 2d 1181 (Fla.1977); and School Board of Palm Beach County, Inc. v. Taylor, 365 So. 2d 1044 (Fla.4th DCA 1978). The second, stated affirmatively, is that it is the duty of the jury to assess the worth of intangible damages, such as pain and suffering, and it is error for the trial judge to interfere with that verdict in the absence of a sh…

Authorities Cited

• Dewberry v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 363 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 1978)