FLORIDA MOTOR LINES CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION,
v.
FORREST F. SHONTZ
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.
A Florida negligence case where a plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident caused by the defendant's negligence. The trial court awarded $5,000 in damages, and the defendant appealed contending the award was excessive and unsupported by evidence, but the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the judgment.
The court affirmed the judgment, finding no merit in the defendant's contention that the declaration was defective, and rejecting the argument that the damages were excessive or unsupported by the evidence.
“we have held that when the law furnishes no legal rule of measurement save the discretion of a jury on the evidence before it, courts will not disturb the verdict upon the grounds of excessive damages unless it is so flagrantly improper as to evince passion, prejudice, partiality or corruption of the jury”
Establishes the standard of review for challenges to jury damage awards
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff's automobile was completely destroyed in an accident caused by defendant's negligence and sold as junk for $35. The vehicle, radio, and heat…
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 Proximate Cause In Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a negligence suit originating in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County resulting in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff below in the sum of $5,000.00. A motion for a new trial was seasonably made and presented and it was by the trial court denied, when the defendant appealed and in its brief poses here four questions or reasons for a reversal. One of these questions is that the declaration of the plaintiff is fatally defective in that it fails to allege that the injuries of the plaintiff were the proximate cause of the defendant’s negligence. The court below sustained the declaration against a demurrer of the defendant below. We fail to find merit in the contention.
Counsel for appellant contends that the verdict and judgment in the sum of $5,000.00 entered for plaintiff below is not only excessive but is not sustained by the testimony. Plaintiff’s automobile appears from the record to have been completely destroyed and was sold as junk for the sum of $35.00. The automobile, radio and heater weré valued at $700.00. *519The hospital and doctor bills were around $70.00. He worked each night and earned $30.00 per week and it is shown that he operated a filling station for the Standard Oil Company during the day and made $80.00 per week. He was injured on July 22, 1945, and was not physically able to work until December 18, 1945, a period of about twenty-one weeks. He was forced to give up the filling station and his night work because his injuries prevented him from working.
His loss of earnings of $110.00 per week for twenty-one weeks amounted to $2,310.00. The automobile and hospital and doctor bills of $700.00 brought his actual losses to approximately $3,010.00. The remaining sum of $2,000.00 for pain and suffering for some 21 weeks, it is contended, is not supported by the record nor the authorities. It is shown that the plaintiff for a period of six weeks after July 22, 1945, had his shoulder anchored to his body in a stationary position by adhesive tape through the hot weather of July, August and a part of September. He was unable to sleep and sleeping pills were prescribed and taken by him. He lost considerable weight during the period. His pain and suffering were continuous from date of injury until he returned to work.
We have held that when the law furnishes no legal rule of measurement save the discretion of a jury on the evidence before it, courts will not disturb the verdict upon the grounds of excessive damages unless it is so flagrantly improper as to evince passion, prejudice, partiality or corruption of the jury. Warner v. Ware, 136 Fla. 466, 182 So. 605.
We fail to find error in the record.
Affirmed.
THOMAS, C. J., TERRELL and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dorthy Bould and Edward Simonson, Jr. v. Touchette, 349 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1977)…laintiff is entitled, unless the amount found is so excessive as to indicate that the jury was influenced by passion, prejudice, corruption, or other improper motive. Loftin v. Dagley, 152 Fla. 831,13 So. 2d 311; Florida Motor Lines Corp. v. Shontz, 159 Fla. 518, 32 So. 2d 248.’ ” At 422. In determining whether a verdict is excessive, vague expressions by the courts about “conscience-shocking amounts” do not furnish the enlightenment that the public should expect from judges about how they arrive at their…
-
Talcott v. Holl, 224 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…aintiff is entitled, unless the amount found is so excessive as to indicate that the jury was influenced by passion, prejudice, corruption, or other improper motive. Loftin v. Dagley, 152 Fla. 831, 13 So. 2d 311; Florida Motor Lines Corp. v. Shontz, 159 Fla. 518, 32 So. 2d 248.” See also, Radiant Oil Co. v. Herring, 146 Fla. 154, 200 So. 376, 378; Rite Rate Cab Company v. McGee, Fla.App.1964, 159 So. 2d 663, 664. The argument presented on this point by the appellants is that because of the size of this ver…
-
Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. McKELVEY, 259 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…raz, Fla.App.1966, 182 So. 2d 491] or rendered a verdict because of “passion and sympathy” [Loftin v. Dagley, 152 Fla. 831, 13 So. 2d 311; Albert v. Miami Transit Company, 154 Fla. 186, 17 So. 2d 89; Florida Motorlines Corp. v. Shontz, 159 F[a. 518, 32 So. 2d 248; Florida East Coast [*782] Railway Company v. Stewart, supra; Talcott v. Holl, supra], the verdict should be left within the discretion of the jury as to compensation for future humiliation, pain, and suffering. S. A. Freel Distributing Co. v. Lenox…
Authorities Cited
- Warner v. Ware, 136 Fla. 466 (Fla. 1938)
- Roberts v. Dean, 133 Fla. 47 (Fla. 1938)