WALTER J. BLANFORD AND ANNIE RUTH BLANFORD, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
POLK COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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 this personal injury appeal arising from an automobile accident with a county road grader, the appellants received jury verdicts of zero damages despite undisputed medical evidence of injury and expenses. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding the zero damage verdict had no rational basis in the evidence.
The court reversed the zero damage verdicts and remanded for a new trial on damages. At a minimum, the undisputed diagnostic testing expenses of approximately $167 must be awarded to Mr. Blanford, and the undisputed evidence that the accident affected the marital relationship requires reconsideration of Mrs. Blanford's consortium claim.
[1] A jury verdict awarding zero damages is reversible when there is no rational predicate for the verdict in the evidence.
[2] A portion of medical expenses incurred for diagnostic testing reasonably necessary to determine the cause of injuries must be awarded, even if the jury finds no injury re…
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“a jury's verdict cannot rest on a mere probability or a guess, and we cannot affirm a verdict where there is no rational predicate for it in the evidence”
Establishes the standard for reviewing allegedly erroneous jury verdicts and the requirement that verdicts must be supported by evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMr. Blanford was injured in an automobile accident involving a road grader owned and operated by Polk County. His wife joined the suit claiming loss o…
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 General Release cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHOONOVER, Judge.
This is an appeal from a final judgment entered in a personal injury action. Jury verdicts of zero damages were awarded to both of the appellants. We reverse.
Mr. Blanford, one of the appellants, was involved in an automobile accident with a road grader owned by the appellee and operated by its employee. His wife was not involved in the accident but joined in the suit because of her derivative claim for loss of consortium.
Prior to filing suit, the appellant executed a general release in exchange for the exact amount of property damage. It was undisputed at trial that both parties were only considering property damage at the time the release was executed. The jury was instructed not to consider it as a release of Mr. Blanford’s personal injury claim.
The appellant also signed an accident report stating that he did not sustain any injuries as a result of the accident. The report was submitted to the jury. During the trial, the appellant testified that he did not remember indicating in the report that he had not sustained any injury. He testified that he was injured as a result of the accident and furthermore that the injuries affected his marital relationship. Mrs. Blanford also testified that the parties’ marital relationship was affected as a result of the accident.
In addition to the appellants’ testimony, an orthopedic surgeon expressed his opinion within a reasonable degree of medical probability that the appellant had sustained an injury as a result of the accident. He stated further that the treatment rendered to Mr. Blanford was necessitated by the automobile accident in question and that at least a portion of his bill in the approximate amount of $167 was attributable to diagnostic testing.
.The court directed a verdict against the appellee on the question of liability. The amount of damages, if any, sustained as a result of the accident was the only issue submitted to the jury.
The appellants contend that they are entitled to a new trial on the question of damages. We agree.
It is true that the matter of the amount of damages is normally for the jury, and it is not the province of the court to substitute its judgment for that of the trier of the facts. A jury’s verdict will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing that error was committed in the pro ceedings below or that the evidence demonstrated that the conclusions reached were clearly erroneous. World Insurance Co. v. Wright, 308 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).
However, a jury’s verdict cannot rest on a mere probability or a guess, and we cannot affirm a verdict where there is no rational predicate for it in the evidence. Food Fair Stores of Florida, Inc. v. Sommer, 111 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959).
Based upon the appellant’s written statement that he was not injured as a result of the accident, the jury could have found that he did not sustain any injuries. However,, it was undisputed that a portion of the medical expenses were incurred for diagnostic testing which was reasonably necessary to determine whether or not the accident caused the appellant’s injuries, and therefore, at least that amount had to be awarded to the appellant. Ridenour v. Sharek, 388 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
Additionally, since it was also undisputed that the parties’ marital relationship was affected as a result of the accident, and we have determined that the jury verdict as to Mr. Blanford must be reversed, we also assume that the jury was misled or failed to understand their duty as a jury in respect to Mrs. Blanford’s claim. Webber v. Jordan, 366 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).
We accordingly reverse and remand for a new trial on the question of damages incurred by the appellants.
SCHEB, C. J., and RYDER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sparks-Book v. The Sports Auth., Inc., 699 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…t of the evidence. At a minimum, the plaintiff was entitled to recover for those medical expenses incurred for any diagnostic testing which was reasonably necessary to determine whether the accident caused her injuries. See Blanford v. Polk County, 410 So. 2d 667, 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); see also Noralyn O. Harlow, Annotation, Recoverability from tortfeasor of cost of diagnostic examinations absent proof of actual bodily injury, 46 A.L.R.4th 1151 (1986). It is undisputed that paramedics were called to the sc…
-
Hernandez v. Gonzalez, 124 So. 3d 988 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…is nonetheless entitled to recover any expenses incurred for medical examinations and diagnostic testing reasonably necessary to determine whether the subject accident caused the injuries. See Sparks-Book, 699 So. 2d at 768; Blanford v. Polk Cnty., 410 So. 2d 667, 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Peek v. Stevens, 395 So. 2d 617, 617-18 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Ridenour v. Sharek, 388 So. 2d 222, 224 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). As such, appellants suggest that this court’s recent decision in Pack v. Geico General Insurance Co.,…
-
Mason v. The Dist. Bd. OF Trs. OF Broward Cmty. Coll., 644 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…pting to determine whether appellant’s injuries were caused by his fall in the hole on appellee’s property. Such diagnostic bills would be recoverable even in the absence of a finding that appellee caused appellant's injury. Blanford v. Polk County, 410 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Ridenour v. Sharek, 388 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), rev. denied, 392 So. 2d 1379 (Fla.1981). However, in the instant case, the jury specifically found there was negligence on the part of appellee "which was the legal cause of…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Food Fair Stores OF Fla., Inc. v. Sommer, 111 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Webber v. Jordan, 366 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Ridenour v. Sharek, 388 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Deauville Realty Co., Inc. v. Tobin, 111 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- State v. ERP, 366 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- World Ins. Co. v. Wright, 308 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)