ELEANOR K. NOWICKI, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JANINE MARIE NOWICKI, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND ADMIRAL INSURANCE COMPANY, A/K/A SECURITY INSURANCE CORPORATION, A CONNECTICUT CORPORATION, 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.
In a wrongful death action arising from inadequate emergency first aid at school, the jury awarded $20,000 to the decedent's estate but $0 to the parents. The court reversed and remanded for new trial on both liability and damages because the jury was confused about applicable law and the damages award to the estate was unsupported by evidence of recoverable damages.
The court reversed the denial of the motion for new trial and remanded for a new trial on both liability and damages because the jury was confused about the applicable law regarding damage allocation in wrongful death actions, as evidenced by the unsupported $20,000 award to the estate when maximum recoverable estate damages were approximately $8,000.
[1] A jury's confusion regarding the proper allocation of damages in a wrongful death action can warrant a new trial on both liability and damages.
[2] An unsupported and excessive award of damages to an estate in a wrongful death action, when contrasted with statutory limitations on recoverable damages for the estate, i…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The jury was confused during their deliberations about whether they had to award damages to the estate, the mother and the father, or whether an award only to the estate would be legally sufficient, should they find for the plaintiff.”
Establishes the fundamental legal confusion that infected the jury's deliberations and verdict
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJanine Marie Nowicki died and her mother, Eleanor K. Nowicki, as personal representative of her estate, sued the School Board of Broward County and it…
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 Jury Confusion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from the denial of a motion for new trial on the issue of damages. We reverse and remand for a new trial on the issues of liability and damages.
Appellant, Eleanor K. Nowicki, as personal representative of the estate of Janine Marie Nowicki, deceased, brought an action for the wrongful death of Janine Nowicki against the School Board of Broward County and its insurer, Admiral Insurance Company, in which she alleged that the School Board was negligent in failing to provide proper emergency first aid care and treatment, and in failing to provide for the health, safety and welfare of Janine Now-.icki, causing her death. At trial the jury returned a verdict for appellant against the School Board, awarding $20,000 to the estate of Janine Marie Nowicki, but awarding zero damages to the decedent’s mother, Eleanor K. Nowicki, and the decedent’s father, Richard Nowicki.
The jury was confused during their deliberations about whether they had to award damages to the estate, the mother and the father, or whether an award only to the estate would be legally sufficient, should they find for the plaintiff. Although the court, after consulting with counsel, tried to clarify the issue, it is apparent from the unsupported amount of the award to the estate that the jury remained confused.
Section 768.21(6), Florida Statutes (1979)1 enumerates those damages that are recoverable on behalf of the estate in a wrongful death action. Specifically, in the instant case the evidence supports a maximum potential recovery on behalf of the estate of $8,000, slightly less than $6,400 for medical expenses and slightly more than $1,600 in funeral costs. This does not even approach the $20,000 award. In light of the previously referred to confusion of the jury and their misconception of law as is apparent from the unsupported award to the estate, we believe a new trial on both liability and damages is proper. Accordingly, we reverse the order denying the motion for new trial on damages alone and remand for a new trial on liability and damages on authority of Section 59.35, Florida Statutes (1979).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HERSEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., and WETHERINGTON, GERALD T., Associate Judge, concur. . Section 768.21(6) provides, in part:
(6) The decedent’s personal representative may recover for the decedent’s estate the following:
(a) Loss of earnings of the deceased from the date of injury to the date of death, less lost support of survivors excluding contributions in kind, with interest. If the decedent’s survivors include a surviving spouse or lineal descedents, loss of net accumulations beyond death and reduced to present value may also be recovered.
(b) Medical or funeral expenses due to the decedent’s injury or death that have become a charge against his estate or that were paid by or on behalf of decedent, excluding amounts recoverable under subsection (5).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
AIR Fla., Inc. v. Hobbs, 477 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…n the division of the economic loss into awards for loss of support and loss of net accumulations. See Bould v. Touchette, 349 So. 2d 1181 (Fla.1977); Bruce v. Byer, 423 So. 2d 413 (Fla.5th DCA 1982); Nowicki v. School [*42] Board of Broward County, 400 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Ellis v. Golconda Corp., 352 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. denied, Peterson v. McKenzie Tank Lines, Inc., 365 So. 2d 714 (Fla.1978). Because the specific jury awards are not predicated on any apparent record support and…
-
William W. Bruce, M.D. v. Byer, 423 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…ons and funeral expenses of $1,955, but that there was no substantive evidence concerning the element of lost earnings; therefore, appellant would be entitled to either a remittitur or new trial on damages. Nowicki v. School Board of Broward County, 400 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). The appellee concedes the evidence aggregates only $5,811 in regard to the second and third elements, but contends there was sufficient evidence in regard to loss of earnings to sustain the verdict. In other words, the jury ver…
-
Fla. Crushed Stone Co. v. Johnson, 546 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…700,000 to the estate exceeds the maximum limit of the reasonable range of the evidence presented and accordingly Florida Crushed Stone is entitled to a new trial on the issue of damages. See Bruce v. Byer; Nowicki v. School Board of Broward County, 400 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Florida Crushed Stone also argues that comments made by plaintiffs’ counsel during closing arguments improperly influenced the jury to include a punitive element in its award of damages. These comments were to the effect that t…