RICHARD M. HANNABASS AND NORMA R. HANNABASS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS OF RHONDA M. HANNABASS, A MINOR, APPELLANTS,
v.
FLORIDA HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, DIANE THIFAULT AND TIMOTHY THIFAULT, 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.
An eleven-year-old girl ran through a sliding glass door at the defendants' home, suffering permanent scarring. The jury awarded $4,000 to the child but nothing to her parents for medical expenses. The appellate court reversed as to the parents' damages claim and remanded for a new trial, while affirming the child's award.
The court reversed the judgment awarding zero damages to the parents and remanded for a new trial on their damages, reduced by 50% to account for imputed negligence. The court affirmed the $4,000 award to Rhonda, finding it legally adequate despite the modest amount.
[1] A jury's award of damages for pain, suffering, and disfigurement may be deemed legally adequate if the plaintiff suffers no functional disability and the disfigurement is…
[2] A new trial on damages may be warranted for parents' claims for medical expenses when the expenses are undisputed and there is a likelihood of future medical needs.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 medical expenses of $1,246.16 incurred for Rhonda's treatment were undisputed, and there is a likelihood that further scar revision will be needed.”
Establishes that the medical expenses should have been awarded as damages to the parents
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRhonda Hannabass, age eleven, ran through a sliding glass door separating the living room from the family room in the Thifaults' home. She was hospita…
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 Imputed Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Acting Chief Judge.
This is an appeal and cross-appeal from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict in a personal injury action.
Rhonda Hannabass, who was eleven years old at the time, ran through the sliding glass door which separated the living room from the family room in Mr. and Mrs. Thi-fault’s home. She was hospitalized and suffered permanent scarring on her hip. As a result, her parents, individually and on her behalf, sued the Thifaults and their insurer. The jury returned a verdict of $4,000 for Rhonda but none for her parents and concluded that Rhonda and the Thifaults were each 50% negligent.
Mr. and Mrs. Hannabass first contend that they were entitled to a new trial on damages with respect to their claim for medical expenses. They are clearly correct. Albritton v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 382 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Shaw v. Peterson, 376 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Webber v. Jordan, 366 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 374 So. 2d 102 (Fla.1979). The medical expenses of $1,246.16 incurred for Rhonda’s treatment were undisputed, and there is a likelihood that further scar revision will be needed. Moreover, nothing in the record indicates that the jury ignored the court’s instructions by including the medical expenses in Rhonda’s verdict.
On the other hand, we cannot say that the jury’s award of $4,000 for Rhonda’s damages was legally inadequate. Rhonda suffered no functional disability from the accident, and the permanent scar is not visible except when she wears a bikini. Likewise, we reject the contention made on cross-appeal that the Thifaults and their insurer were entitled to a directed verdict. The passageway through which Rhonda was running when she was hurt was normally kept open, but the Thifaults had closed it the day of the accident because they had turned on the air conditioning. Although it was clear that they had been cautioned to put a warning decal on the door, there was conflicting testimony over whether they had done so prior to the accident. Therefore, the jury was entitled to find some negligence on their part.
We reverse the judgment of zero damages for Mr. and Mrs. Hannabass and remand the case for a new trial on the damages they incurred as Rhonda’s parents. The court should reduce any damages awarded to them at the new trial by 50% in accordance with the jury’s prior verdict because Rhonda’s negligence must be imputed to them. See Hamm v. City of Milton, 358 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). We affirm the judgment of $2,000 for Rhonda.
RYDER and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fitzgerald v. Cestari, 569 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 1990)…es in compliance with the requirements of the applicable building code, this claim was not raised in the amended complaint or urged to the trial court and therefore will not be addressed by this Court. . See Hannabass v. Florida Home Insurance Co., 412 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1981); Peppermint Twist, Inc. v. Wright, 169 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1964); Canner v. Blank, 152 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1963); McCain v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co., 110 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 3rd DCA), cert. denied, 114 So. 2d 3 (Fla.195…
-
Hartsfield v. Orlando Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc., 522 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…for zero damages, and the appellant is entitled to a new trial. Short v. Ehrler, 510 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company v. Howard, 458 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Hannabass v. Florida Home Insurance Company, 412 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). See also Hagens v. Hilston, 388 So. 2d 1379 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Albritton v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 382 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Shaw v. Peterson, 376 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Botag Manufact…
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. & John E. Wilkerson v. Howard, 458 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…ted evidence of an objectively verifiable injury, the jury awarded her zero damages. Her medical expenses were undisputed. Clearly, she is entitled to a new trial. Griffis v. Hill, 230 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 1969); Hannabass v. Florida Home Insurance Co., 412 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Albritton v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 382 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). Therefore, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. DANAHY and LEHAN, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Albritton v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. & Cheryl Lee Dannels, 382 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Leander J. Shaw, Jr. v. Peterson, 376 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Cotton States Mut. INS. Co. v. Trevethan, 358 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Webber v. Jordan, 366 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- State v. ERP, 366 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)