FELIX MARTIN AND GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
BILL YOUNG AND EDDREST D. YOUNG, 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 personal injury automobile collision case, the trial court directed a verdict for plaintiffs on liability and the no-fault statutory threshold, then the jury awarded minimal damages. The trial court granted a new trial on damages. On appeal, the court affirmed the directed verdict on the no-fault threshold and the new trial on compensatory damages, but reversed on punitive damages, finding the evidence insufficient to support a punitive damages claim.
The directed verdict on the no-fault threshold was proper because there was no conflict in the medical evidence and no other reasonable inferences to be drawn. The new trial on compensatory damages was properly granted as defendants did not demonstrate an abuse of discretion. However, the evidence did not support a punitive damages claim, and the punitive damages issue should not have been submitted to the jury.
[1] A directed verdict on the no-fault threshold issue is proper when there is no conflict in the medical evidence and no other reasonable inferences can be drawn from that e…
[2] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial on compensatory damages when the appealing party fails to demonstrate such abuse.
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“Although the issue is ordinarily a factual one for submission to a jury, see, e.g., Allstate Insurance Co. v. Ruiz, 305 So.2d 275 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), here the directed verdict for the plaintiffs was proper in that there was no conflict in the medical evidence and no other reasonable inferences to be drawn from that evidence.”
Establishes that directed verdicts on typically factual no-fault threshold issues are permissible when medical evidence is uncontroverted
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs Felix Martin and GEICO were involved in an automobile collision with defendant Bill Young. Defendant Martin was operating a vehicle with de…
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 Reckless Indifference To Rights Of Others cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In a personal injury action arising out of an automobile collision, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of plaintiffs, finding that both liability and the statutory threshold requirements under Florida’s no-fault statute1 were established as a matter of law. The jury then awarded plaintiffs $100 in compensatory damages and $50 in punitive damages. The trial court entered an order granting a new trial on the issues of compensatory and punitive damages. Defendants appeal, contending that the trial court erred in granting a new trial, and in directing a verdict on the issue of the permanency of plaintiffs injuries under the no-fault statute’s threshold requirements.
We affirm the directed verdict on the no-fault threshold issue. Although the issue is ordinarily a factual one for submission to a jury, see, e.g., Allstate Insurance Co. v. Ruiz, 305 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), here the directed verdict for the plaintiffs was proper in that there was no conflict in the medical evidence and no other reasonable inferences to be drawn from that evidence. See Hendricks v. Dailey, 208 So. 2d 101 (Fla.1968). We also affirm the granting of a new trial on the compensatory damages issue because defendants have not demonstrated that the trial court abused its discretion. Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla.1959).
We reach a different conclusion on the punitive damages issue. The claim for punitive damages was based on alleged “willful and wanton conduct” on the part of defendant Martin in operating a vehicle with defective brakes. The defendant’s un-controverted testimony is that he was aware of a slow leak somewhere in his braking system which required a periodic “topping off” of the brake fluid reservoir; that he had never before experienced a total brake failure; that prior to the accident the brake pedal was “hard”. He further stated that he previously had taken the automobile to a mechanic who was unable to locate the leak. The officer who investigated the accident testified that when he tested the brakes on defendant’s vehicle at the accident scene, they appeared to be working properly.
The character of negligence necessary to support an award of punitive damages was defined by the Florida Supreme Court in Carraway v. Revell, 116 So. 2d 16, 20 n. 12 (Fla.1959) as:
... of ‘a gross and flagrant character, evincing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or there is that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard of the safety and welfare of the public, or that reckless indifference to the rights of others which is equivalent to an intentional violation of them.’ [cites omitted].
We agree with defendants that the evidence in the record does not support a claim for punitive damages and that, therefore, the issue should not have gone to the jury.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
. See § 627.737(2), Fla.Stat. (1981).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
White Constr. Co., Inc. v. Dupont, 455 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 1984)…nitive damages was not at issue. Consequently, the language there concerning punitive damages could appropriately be termed dicta. However, it has been followed by the district courts. See, e.g., Martin (Government Employees Insurance Co.) v. Young, 443 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Ellis v. Golconda Corp., 352 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. denied, 365 So. 2d 714 (Fla.1978); Carter v. Lake Wales Hospital Association, 213 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968). In Carraway we made it clear that something mor…
-
Morey v. Harper, 541 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…vidence and require the granting of a new trial. Scarfone v. Magaldi, 522 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied by 531 So. 2d 1353 (Fla.1988). See also, Short v. Ehrler, 510 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). We note that in one case, Martin v. Young, 443 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), the third district affirmed a directed verdict for the plaintiff on the issue of permanency where “there was no conflict in the medical evidence and no other reasonable inferences [could] be drawn from that evidence.” 443 So. 2d…
-
Laberge v. Vancleave, 534 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…y of the experts’ testimony,- (we hasten to add, we can fault none of it in this case) the question of whether a plaintiff has suffered a permanent injury is one for the jury. See Tripp v. Killam, 492 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Martin v. Young, 443 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Allstate Insurance Co. v. Ruiz, 305 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). On this issue, there was a conflict in the evidence in this case. Further, a directed verdict should be affirmed only where, viewing the evidence in a light mos…
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
- Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1959)
- Royal Carraway v. Revell, 116 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1959)
- Hendricks v. Dailey, 208 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 1968)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ruiz, 305 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)