AIR FLORIDA, INC., APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
RICHARD C. HOBBS, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JAMES C. HOBBS, JR., APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
Air Florida appeals a jury verdict awarding $2,000,000 to the estate of James Hobbs, who died in the airline's Flight 90 crash, for loss of net accumulations. The court reverses and remands, finding insufficient evidentiary support for the jury's division of the economic loss award between loss of support/services and loss of net accumulations.
The court reversed because the record contained insufficient substantial evidence to support the jury's division of the economic loss. While evidence may have supported the total award amount, there was no evidence—such as specific figures or ranges—upon which the jury could reasonably base its verdict allocating damages between loss of support and loss of net accumulations.
[1] A jury award for loss of net accumulations in a wrongful death action may be reversed if the division of damages between loss of support and loss of net accumulations is…
[2] In a wrongful death action, the issue of loss of support, loss of services, other intangible damages, and loss of net accumulations may be inextricably intertwined, requi…
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“the record fails to present any substantial evidence upon which the jury could logically have divided the expert's $3,000,000 estimate between loss of support and services and loss of net accumulations”
Establishes the core deficiency: lack of evidentiary support for the specific damage allocation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames Hobbs was killed in Air Florida Flight 90's crash on January 13, 1982. His brother Richard Hobbs, as personal representative of the estate, sued…
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 Loss Of Net Accumulations cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
This is an appeal from a final judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict in favor of Richard Hobbs, as personal representative of the Estate of James Hobbs [Estate], in this wrongful death action. Air Florida challenges the propriety of the award of $2,000,000 to the Estate for loss of net accumulations. We reverse.
James Hobbs was killed during the tragic crash of Air Florida’s Flight 90, in the District of Columbia on January 13, 1982. Following the disaster, decedent’s brother, Richard Hobbs, instituted this lawsuit seeking damages for the wrongful death of his brother. He sought to recover damages for, among other things, loss of support and services to decedent’s surviving spouse and two minor children as well as loss of net accumulations * to decedent’s estate. Because Air Florida admitted liability, the cause proceeded to trial solely on the issue of damages.
The jury returned a verdict awarding $1,500,000 to the widow and decedent’s two minor children for loss of support and services and other intangible damages, and $2,000,000 to decedent’s estate for loss of net accumulations. Air Florida filed post-trial motions for new trial and remittitur on the specific issue of loss of net accumulations. Denying these motions, the trial court entered final judgment in accordance with the jury verdict.
Addressing the two points raised by Air Florida on appeal, we find first, contrary to Air Florida’s assertion, that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support submission of the claim of loss of net accumulations to the jury. As to its second point, however, we agree with Air Florida that the division of the jury award was unsupported by the evidence. Plaintiff presented testimony of an economic expert that decedent’s anticipated earnings from the date of his death through his projected retirement at age 70, minus his personal consumption, would be in excess of $3,000,000.
However, the record fails to present any substantial evidence upon which the jury could logically have divided the expert’s $3,000,000 estimate between loss of support and services and loss of net accumulations. Although plaintiff’s expert witness presented some vague and sketchy testimony concerning decedent’s above-average propensity for accumulating money, he offered no opinion concerning the actual value of decedent’s net accumulations; in fact, there is no evidence in the record of any figure or of an approximate range of figures upon which the jury could reasonably have based its verdict on net accumulations.
While the evidence may be sufficient to support the total award, we are unable to find sufficient, substantive evidence in the record to sustain the division of the economic loss into awards for loss of support and loss of net accumulations. See Bould v. Touchette, 349 So. 2d 1181 (Fla.1977); Bruce v. Byer, 423 So. 2d 413 (Fla.5th DCA 1982); Nowicki v. School Board of Broward County, 400 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Ellis v. Golconda Corp., 352 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. denied, Peterson v. McKenzie Tank Lines, Inc., 365 So. 2d 714 (Fla.1978).
Because the specific jury awards are not predicated on any apparent record support and because the issues of loss of support, loss of services, and other intangible damages, and the issue of loss of net accumulations are inextricably intertwined, see Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Fairbanks, 400 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Lawson v. Swirn, 258 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 263 So. 2d 235 (Fla.1972), the only way in which damages can appropriately be assessed is by a new trial on both damage elements. See Brantley v. Hamilton, 354 So. 2d 955 (Fla.3d DCA 1978).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
*
Sec. 768.18(5), Fla.Stat. (1981), defines net accumulations:
"Net accumulations” means the part of the decedent’s expected net business or salary income, including pension benefits, that the decedent probably would have retained as savings and left as part of his estate if he had lived his normal life expectancy. “Net business or salary income" is the part of the decedent’s probable gross income after taxes, excluding income from investments continuing beyond death, that remains after deducting the decedent’s personal expenses and support of survivors, excluding contributions in kind.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Phillips v. Ostrer, 481 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…time. Thus, the separate proof establishing liability for damages based on fraud and negligence precludes a ruling that appellants received a multiple award for a single claim.7 The facts of this case distinguish it from Air Florida, Inc. v. Hobbs, 477 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). In Air Florida, this court held that although the evidence was sufficient to support the total award, there was no evidence to sustain the division of the award. The total amount of the jury award in Air Florida could be determin…
-
Cowart v. Kendall United Methodist Church & Atl. Mut. Ins. Co., 476 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…Vega, supra; Shank, supra; Noll v. Byorick, 108 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959); Coppola v. Ballard, 314 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); see also Timmy Woods Beverly Hills, Ltd. v. Greenwald, 475 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Air Florida, Inc. v. Hobbs, 477 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); compare Cedars of Lebanon Hospital Corp. v. Silva, 476 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). When we asked the Cowarts’ counsel at oral argument his position were we to reach this conclusion, he forthrightly stated that he did not desir…
-
Osheroff v. Rauch Weaver Millsaps & Co., 882 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…tself to apportion damages either between the parties or between the claims. Even if this were the case, the jury had no right to do so based on the evidence presented and the legal instructions given by the trial judge. See Air Fla., Inc. v. Hobbs, 477 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Besett v. Basnett, 437 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).…
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 (11 total)
- Dorthy Bould and Edward Simonson, Jr. v. Touchette, 349 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1977)
- Ellis v. Golconda Corp., 352 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y OF the United States v. Fairbanks, 400 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- In re Est. of Irving S. Richter, 258 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Izar Lawson and Reto Lawson v. Swirn, 258 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)
- William W. Bruce, M.D. v. Byer, 423 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Vogel v. Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc., 423 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Nowicki v. Sch. Bd. OF Broward Cnty., 400 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- John W. Thomson & SON, Inc. v. Jeziorski, 263 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 1972)
- Maria Papp et vir v. Guillermina Rivero Morales, 263 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 1972)