JOSIE MAE UPSON, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES L. HAZELRIG, 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.
This case concerns whether a defendant who caused an accident but was found not liable for damages is entitled to recover costs. The court held that the plaintiff, who recovered a judgment for property damage despite no award for personal injury, was the party entitled to costs.
The plaintiff is the sole party entitled to recover costs when they obtain a judgment, even if the jury awarded no damages for personal injury and the judgment was entered notwithstanding the verdict for property damage.
[1] A party who recovers a judgment, even if nominal, is entitled to recover costs under Section 57.041, Florida Statutes.
[2] A plaintiff is the "party recovering judgment" entitled to costs when the jury finds the defendant solely negligent but awards no damages for personal injury, and the cou…
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“Where, as here, the jury finds that the automobile accident was caused solely by the defendant’s negligence, but awards the plaintiff no damages for the claimed injuries to his person and property, the plaintiff is nevertheless the sole party entitled to recover judgment and thus costs under Section 57.041, Florida Statutes (1983)”
Establishes the general rule for cost recovery when a plaintiff is awarded no damages by the jury but is later entitled to judgment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe jury found the defendant negligent but awarded the plaintiff no damages for personal injury or property damage. The trial court later entered an u…
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 Offer Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.
The final judgment denying the defendant-appellant’s motion to tax costs is affirmed. Where, as here, the jury finds that the automobile accident was caused solely by the defendant’s negligence, but awards the plaintiff no damages for the claimed injuries to his person and property, the plaintiff is nevertheless the sole party entitled to recover judgment and thus costs under Section 57.041, Florida Statutes (1983), Raffel v. Magarian, 165 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964).
A fortiori, where, as here, the trial court entered an unappealed judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the plaintiff in the undisputed amount of the property damage to the plaintiffs automobile, the plaintiff is the “party recovering judgment” entitled to costs under the statute. See Hendry Tractor Company v. Fernandez, 432 So. 2d 1315 (Fla.1983) (plaintiff sole party entitled to recover legal costs under statute where he recovers judgment on theory of negligence, but not on theory of strict liability/breach of warranty); Kendall East Estates, Inc. v. Banks, 386 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (plaintiff sole party entitled to recover legal costs under statute, notwithstanding that plaintiffs net judgment reduced by amount of lesser judgment for defendant on counterclaim).
If, as the record below reflects, the defendant’s negligence and the plaintiffs property damage were not issues of serious dispute, and the defendant’s primary defense was that the plaintiff had not suffered a permanent injury within reasonable medical probability so as to entitle the plaintiff to recover for personal injuries, see § 627.737, Fla.Stat. (1981), then, given the results of this case, the defendant could have preserved his claim for costs had he made an offer of judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 in the undisputed amount of the property damage. That not having been done and the defendant not being a “party recovering judgment,” the defendant’s motion to tax costs was correctly denied.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sunshine Bottling Co. v. Tropicana Prods., Inc., 757 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…Sunshine was the only party entitled to recover a judgment, and for that reason the only one entitled to recover its costs. See The Green Companies, Inc. v. Kendall Racquetball Investment, Ltd., 658 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Upson v. Hazelrig, 444 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Blue v. Williams, 200 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967); Raffel v. Magarian, 165 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). However, we find Sunshine is not entitled to attorneys’ fees because nothing in the parties’ agreement provides for prev…
-
Tacher v. Mathews, 845 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…a defense “judgment” for purposes of a cost award under section 57.041, Fla. Stat. (1995). Following oral argument before a three judge panel, we sua sponte reheard the case en banc to consider the intra-district conflict between Upson v. Hazelrig, 444 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), Blue v. Williams, 200 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967), and Raffel v. Magarian, 165 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964), all of which concluded that costs should go to the plaintiff under similar situations; and Militana v. Ladd, 605 So.…
-
B.J. Militana and Marie Militana v. Ladd, 605 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…defendants in the instant case are “entitled to a judgment for their taxable costs” since [*581] “they were the parties recovering judgment.” Weeks, 566 So. 2d at 345. See also Chivers v. Smith, 556 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Upson v. Hazelrig, 444 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); § 57.041, Fla. Stat. (1989). Accordingly, the final cost judgment entered in favor of the defendants’ liability insurance carrier is affirmed.…
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
- Hendry Tractor Co. v. Fernandez, 432 So. 2d 1315 (Fla. 1983)
- Weiss v. Turtletaub, 386 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Kendall E. Ests., Inc. v. David P. Banks & Joan S. Banks, 386 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Emil J. Raffel v. Magarian, 165 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)