VERNA STEVENS, APPELLANT,
v.
MOUNT VERNON FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY AND SAYED GEORGE DEEB, D/B/A SWIFTY ENTERPRISES, LIMITED, 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.
A jury award of damages is grossly inadequate when it exactly matches medical expenses despite undisputed evidence of pain and future suffering.
Plaintiff suffered a broken wrist in defendant's laundromat, incurring medical bills. A jury found the defendant 100% at fault but awarded only the ex…
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 Inadequate Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.
Verna Stevens, age 65, fell and broke her wrist in the defendant’s laundromat. She incurred $600 in medical bills, neither the reasonableness nor necessity of which were challenged. She quite obviously suffered some pain, she complained of pain nearly a year after the accident, and her complaints were consistent with the physical findings of a medical witness, who stated that Verna would suffer increasing pain in the future. Additionally, the medical witness testified that Verna suffered a ten per cent permanent disability as a result of her wrist injury-
A jury found the defendant one hundred per cent at fault and, although instructed, inter alia, to consider pain and suffering and permanent disability as elements of damages, returned a verdict for Verna in the exact amount of her medical bills, that is, $600. Verna’s motion for a new trial on the ground that the damage award was inadequate was denied, and she appealed.
We reverse and remand upon a holding that where, as here, a jury awards the plaintiff the exact amount of medical expenses incurred by her, despite indisputable evidence that the plaintiff suffered at least some pain from her injury, and uncontro-verted evidence that the pain continued and would continue well after the injury, the damage award is grossly inadequate, and a new trial on the issue of damages is required. Pickel v. Rosen, 214 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). See also Short v. Grossman, 245 So. 2d 217 (Fla.1971); Griffis v. Hill, 230 So. 2d 143 (Fla.1970); Anderson v. Chirogianis, 384 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
Reversed and remanded for a new trial on damages only,
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Beauvais v. Edell, 760 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…evidence is in fact an award only of medical expenses. See, e.g., Gonzalez v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 463 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Skelly v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 445 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Stevens v. Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co., 395 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Rodriguez v. Allgreen Corp., 242 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Pickel v. Rosen, 214 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). There is nothing in the opinions, however, indicating that the subject of an itemized verdict form was raised or…
-
Skelly v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. & Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 445 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…r New Trial. The indisputable evidence is that the Plaintiff suffered pain and a permanent partial disability from a demonstrable injury. The zero damage award for those items is grossly inadequate and a new trial is required. Stevens v. Mt. Vernon, 395 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for an additur or to permit the plaintiff to have the option of a new trial on damages only. REVERSED AND REMANDED. GLICKSTEIN and HURLEY, JJ., concur.…
-
Gonzalez v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 463 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Griffis v. Hill, 230 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 1969)
- Pickel v. Rosen, 214 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Short v. Grossman, 245 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1971)
- Anderson v. Chirogianis, 384 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)