BILL HATFIELD AND MAE HATFIELD, APPELLANTS,
v.
WELLS BROTHERS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AMERICAN BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, AND FLOYD HENRY TYNER, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that it is error to refuse a jury instruction on loss of future earning capacity when there is evidence of permanent injury.
[1] A jury instruction on loss of future earning capacity is required when there is evidence of permanent injury.
[2] Loss of future earning capacity may be compensated even if a plaintiff has transitioned to a more profitable occupation.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs were injured in an automobile accident and sued for damages. They presented evidence of permanent injuries but the trial court refused to i…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Loss Of Future Earnings cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Judge.
Appellants contend the trial judge erred in refusing to instruct the jury that the Hatfields were entitled to recover damages for their loss of future earning capacity. We agree and reverse.
Bill Hatfield and his wife, Mae Hatfield, were injured in an automobile accident in July 1976 in Clearwater, Florida. They brought suit against the appellees seeking to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from the accident. At trial they presented medical evidence that each sustained permanent injuries. At the conference on jury instructions the trial judge refused the Hatfields’ request that Florida Standard Jury Instruction 6.2(d) on loss of future earning capacity be given. Following trial the jury returned a verdict finding the appellees negligent, and awarded Mae Hatfield $5,000 and Bill Hatfield $8,000. The Hatfields moved for a new trial on the issue of damages. The trial court denied the motion, and this appeal ensued. The Hatfields argue that it was error for the trial court to refuse to instruct on loss of future earning capacity since there was evidence that each of them suffered permanent injuries. On the other hand, the appellees argue that the court did not err because there was no evidence of diminution of the Hatfields’ earning capacity following the accident.
We agree with the Hatfields that when, as here, there is evidence of a permanent injury, it is error for the court to refuse to instruct on loss of future earning capacity. Grant v. Hoffman,, 151 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963); see also Burris v. Bowe’s Funeral Home, Ltd., 204 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). Moreover, loss of future earning capacity may be compensated even when a plaintiff has moved into a more profitable line of work. United States v. Jacobs, 308 F. 2d 906 (5th Cir. 1962).
Finally, we find no merit in the Hatfields’ contention that the trial court erred in refusing to give other requested instructions.
We reverse and award the Hatfields a new trial solely on the issue of damages.
HOBSON, Acting C. J., and DANAHY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
W.R. Grace & Company-Conn. v. Pyke, 661 So. 2d 1301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…truction on loss of ability to earn money in the future where there is evidence of an injury and evidence which is sufficiently detailed to allow the trier of fact to quantify the loss of earning capacity. Long, supra; Hatfield v. Wells Bros., Inc., 378 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), cert, denied, 388 So. 2d 1119 (Fla.1980); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Shilling, 374 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). It was the jury’s role to determine the amount plaintiff could earn in other occupations, as compared to his earnings as…
-
N. Broward Hosp. Dist. v. Rolanda Johnson, 538 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…program later in high school. We believe the evidence is sufficient to create a jury question as to whether Rolanda’s future earning capacity has been impaired. Platt v. Schwindt, 493 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), Hatfield v. Wells Brothers, Inc., 378 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 388 So. 2d 1119 (Fla.1980). The mere fact that the jury awarded the Johnsons a sizeable amount for Rolanda’s special education and rehabilitative services does not necessarily mean it will effectively overcome her…
-
Hubbs v. McDONALD, 517 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…a diminished capacity to labor as a result of the injury sustained in the accident, and the evidence of her earnings furnishes a monetary standard against which the jury can measure any future loss. Allstate, supra; Hatfield v. Wells Brothers, Inc., 378 So. 2d 33 (Fla.2d [*70] DCA 1979), cert. denied, 388 So. 2d 1119 (Fla.1980). Accordingly, the order appealed is reversed in part and this cause is remanded for a new trial on the issue of Jeanne Hubbs’ entitlement to compensatory damages. At the conclusion…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Jacobs, 308 F.2d 906 (5th Cir. 1962)
- Grant v. Hoffman, 151 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Burris v. Bowe's Funeral Home, Ltd., 204 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)