JOSEPH W. MCHUGH
v.
MIAMI TRANSIT COMPANY A FLORIDA CORPORATION
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 Florida Supreme Court reversed a trial court's order reducing a jury verdict from $40,000 to $20,000 in a personal injury case. The court held that the trial judge provided no analysis justifying the remittitur and showed no finding that the jury was influenced by passion or prejudice, making the reduction improper.
The remittitur was erroneous and reversed. The trial court failed to provide analysis of the testimony justifying the reduction, and there was no finding that the jury was influenced by passion or prejudice, making the reduction improper.
“The order discloses no analysis of the testimony which would necessitate limiting the recovery to $20,000.00.”
Establishes the core requirement for remittitur—the trial court must analyze the testimony to justify any reduction of the verdict.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJoseph McHugh, age 28 with a life expectancy of 36.73 years, was injured by negligent operation of a bus by Miami Transit Company. He worked as a pres…
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 Negligent Operation cases and more on FLexlaw
The question here is whether the court below erred by ordering a remittitur of $20,000.00 from a $40,000.00 verdict in lieu of plaintiff to a new trial.
Plaintiff-appellant was injured by the negligent operation *761of a bus operated by the Miami Transit Company. At the time of the injury plaintiff was 28 years old, was in good' health, was married and had two children. His life expectancy was' 36.73 years. His only trade was news printing as a press operator which yielded a salary of $3,900.00 annually.
Due to his injury he will never be able to resume his trade because he cannot remain on his feet for a long period of time. Other work which he might possibly be able to undertake would pay from $25.00 to $35.00 per week. Thus his loss in earnings might well exceed $25,000.00 after being reduced to its present value.
New cases have revealed greater pain and suffering to a person as this will surely follow him for the remainder of his life.
After the accident plaintiff was unconscious for seven days; was confined to hospital for ten months — in bed for six months and in a wheel chair for four months. A large part of the flesh was torn from his lower limbs necessitating skin grafting with attendant pain and inconvenience. He will never regain his normal appearance and will suffer pain the remainder of his life. The present and future injury was fully proved by the uncontradicted testimony of eminent doctors.
The order discloses no analysis of the testimony which would necessitate limiting the recovery to $20,000.00. See Smith v. Jackson County, 129 Fla. 787, 176 So. 858. Neither does it appear that the jury, in the trial court’s opinion, was influenced by passion or prejudice. Therefore the order was erroneous and it is reversed with directions to enter a judgment on the jury’s verdict. See Albert v. Miami Transit Company, 154 Fla. 186, 17 So. (2nd) 89; Breeding’s Dania Drug Co. v. Runyon, 147 Fla. 123, 2 So. (2nd) 376; City of Orlando v. Zapfe, 145 Fla. 120; 198 So. 801; Florida Motor Lines Corp. v. Barry, 158 Fla. 123, 27 So. (2nd) 753; International Lubricant Corp. v. Grant, 128 Fla. 670, 175 So. 727; Freel Distributing Co., Inc. v. Lenox, 147 Fla. 550, 3 So. (2nd) 157.
We have' considered the cross assignments of error and find no merit therein.
Reversed.
THOMAS, C. J., BUFORD and BARNS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tinsley v. Tinsley, 125 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1960)…r, supra, on the same facts. We prefer to adhere to our holding in these cases that the ninety day residence period, now six months, for divorce is “wholly inapplicable to suits by a wife.for alimony filed under Section 65.09, supra.” [159 Fla. 694, 32 So. 2d 735] Certiorari is granted and the judgment of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, is quashed. THOMAS, C. J., and HOBSON, THOR-NAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Breeding's Dania Drug Co. v. Elbert Allen Runyon, 147 Fla. 123 (Fla. 1941)
- Albert v. Miami Transit Co., Inc., 154 Fla. 186 (Fla. 1944)
- Fla. Motor Lines Corp. v. Barry, 158 Fla. 123 (Fla. 1946)
- S. A. Freel Distrib. Co., Inc. v. Lenox, 147 Fla. 550 (Fla. 1941)
- Peninsular Land Co. v. Stevens, 154 Fla. 186 (Fla. 1944)
- Int'l Lubricant Corp. v. Grant, 128 Fla. 670 (Fla. 1937)
- Smith v. Jackson Cnty., 129 Fla. 787 (Fla. 1937)
- City of Orlando v. Walburger Zapfe, 145 Fla. 120 (Fla. 1940)