MCDONOUGH POWER EQUIPMENT, INC., APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE.
v.
CHARLES ANDREW BROWN, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS, CHARLES ALAN BROWN AND PATRICIA J. BROWN, AND CHARLES ALAN BROWN AND PATRICIA J. BROWN, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS
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.
McDonough Power Equipment appeals from a personal injury jury verdict for injuries to a minor plaintiff and his parents' medical expenses. The trial court accepted a $380,000 verdict but then reduced it through directed verdict on punitive damages and remittitur on the parents' claim, leaving $191,000. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial on compensatory damages due to jury confusion and inconsistent verdicts.
The appellate court affirmed the elimination of punitive damages as unsupported by the evidence but reversed and remanded for a new trial on compensatory damages, finding that accepting a $380,000 verdict immediately subject to reduction to $191,000 constituted an abuse of discretion and demonstrated jury confusion.
[1] A jury verdict that is internally inconsistent may be grounds for a new trial.
[2] Resubmitting only the issue of compensatory damages to a jury after an inconsistent verdict is erroneous.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“This was clearly erroneous. Stevens Markets, Inc. v. Markantonatos, 189 So.2d 624 (Fla.1966). However, this error was cured when the jury was reinstructed following the second verdict at which time all the issues were resubmitted to the jury.”
Establishes that resubmitting only compensatory damages after the first verdict was error but was cured by subsequent reinstructions on all issues.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCharles Andrew Brown, a minor, was injured and brought an action for personal injuries with his parents seeking medical expenses. The jury returned th…
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 Punitive Damages Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
HERSEY, Judge.
In an action for personal injuries brought by the injured minor plaintiff, Andrew, and his parents (for medical expenses) the jury brought in a verdict that was internally inconsistent, a second verdict suffering from the same impediment and ultimately a verdict which was accepted by the trial court. The following chart summarizes the results and points up the difficulty:
VERDICTS 1_2_3
Andrew’s compensatory 100,000 - 150,000 damages
Parent’s compensatory - 100,000 150,000 damages
Punitive damages 50,000 50,000 80,000
Various motions for mistrials were denied. Post-trial, the trial court granted appellant’s renewed motion for a directed verdict as to the claims for punitive damages and his motion for remittitur reducing the parents’ compensatory damages to $41,000, the amount of medical expenses evidenced in the record. As our introductory remarks foreshadow, we find no error concerning the trial of the liability issue. We thus confine our review to the propriety of damages, appellant’s second point on appeal.
After the jury brought in the first verdict, the trial court resubmitted to the jury only the issue of compensatory damages. This was clearly erroneous. Stevens Markets, Inc. v. Markantonatos, 189 So. 2d 624 (Fla.1966). However, this error was cured when the jury was reinstructed following the second verdict at which time all the issues were resubmitted to the jury. This leaves only the question of whether the ultimate verdict totalling $380,000 may be sustained. As a result of the striking of the punitive damages by directed verdict and the reduction by remittitur of the parents’ claim to $41,000, damages of $191,000 remained. We affirm the .elimination of punitive damages. Punitive damages are reserved for those cases involving an outrageous disregard for the rights of another. The evidence in this case is insufficient to constitute gross disregard for others. City of Hollywood v. Coley, 258 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). However in our view the acceptance of a $380,000 verdict which was immediately subject to reduction to $191,-000, constitutes an abuse of discretion. Clearly the jury was extremely confused throughout, so that the product of their deliberations was meaningless. Under the circumstances we are compelled to reverse and remand for a new trial on the issue of compensatory damages only.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DOWNEY and BERANEK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McDONOUGH Power Equip., Inc. v. Brown, 486 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…GLICKSTEIN, Judge. In McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Brown, 443 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (McDonough I), this court found no error concerning liability, but reversed and remanded for new trial on the sole issue of compensatory damages. Now the final judgment rendered as the result of the new trial is before this court…
-
Hollywood Corporate Circle Assocs. v. Amato, 604 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…nt of damages. Stevens Markets, Inc. v. Markantonatos, 189 So. 2d 624 (Fla.1966) (jury to which verdict is returned for correction may alter verdict in substances or submit entirely different one.) See also, McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Brown, 443 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 453 So. 2d 44 (Fla.1984) (error for trial court to resubmit, after first verdict, only the issue of compensatory damages, though cured by resubmitting all issues after a second verdict). In addition to the foregoing,…
-
Monty v. Hayward, 451 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…rcumstances, recovery is limited to the actual damages proved. Brock v. Maine, 293 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), cert. denied, 297 So. 2d 837 (Fla.1974); Martin v. Young, 443 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Brown, 443 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Although the record contains competent and substantial evidence that the [*939] retaining wall m question constituted a nuisance, the appellee failed to present sufficient evidence that the appellant’s construction of it amoun…
Authorities Cited
- Coral WAY Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. v. Humerto Irene Picon & the Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 189 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1966)
- City OF Hollywood v. Coley, 258 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)