BILL RAY DAVIS, APPELLANT/CROSS APPELLEE, AND CATHERINE BENNER, CROSS APPELLANT,
v.
ELMER E. O'DELL, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF DAISY B. O'DELL, DECEASED, 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.
In this wrongful death and personal injury case, the trial court granted an additur of $75,000 to the wrongful death claim after a jury verdict of $25,000, finding the award inadequate under Florida law. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the evidence fully supported the additur and no abuse of discretion occurred.
The trial court properly exercised its discretion in granting an additur of $75,000 to the wrongful death claim, as the evidence fully supported the trial judge's determination that the jury's $25,000 award was inadequate. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in this action.
[1] A trial court may grant an additur or a new trial on a wrongful death claim if the jury's award is found to be inadequate.
[2] An appellate court will affirm an order granting a new trial if the record supports the trial judge's findings and no abuse of discretion is demonstrated.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“recognizing full well that the trial judge, even under this statute, is no seventh juror, Laskey v. Smith, 239 So.2d 13 (Fla.1970); Ford v. Robinson, 403 So.2d 1379 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), nor does he have unbridled discretion in these matters.”
Establishes the standard that trial judges have limited discretion in additur decisions and are not themselves jurors.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceElmer and Daisy O'Dell, a devoted couple married 58 years and both age 78, were injured in an automobile accident while being driven to a flea market …
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 Additur cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
After a jury verdict in favor of appellee, O’Dell, individually, and as Personal Representative of his wife’s estate, the trial court granted O’Dell’s motion for an additur or new trial on the wrongful death claim, and denied the motion as to O’Dell’s individual claim. From the order granting the addi-tur or motion for new trial Davis has perfected this appeal.
Elmer O’Dell and Daisy O’Dell, husband and wife, had a daughter, Doris Davis, who was married to appellant, Bill Ray Davis. Elmer and Daisy, both seventy-eight years of age, had been married for fifty-eight years and were very devoted to each other. Bill Ray Davis and Doris took the O’Dells on trips from time to time due to their advanced age and physical disabilities. On the day in question Bill and Doris were driving the O’Dells on a Father’s Day outing to a flea market when they became involved in an automobile accident with appellant Benner, injuring Elmer and killing Daisy. In due course, Elmer sued Benner and Davis individually for his injuries and as personal representative of Daisy’s estate for wrongful death. The jury returned a verdict of $25,000 for O’Dell as personal representative of the estate and $10,000 for O’Dell individually for his injuries and damages, and final judgment was entered thereon. On motion for an additur or new trial the trial court granted an additur of $75,000 or, if Davis objected thereto, a new trial. As regards O’Dell individually the court denied the motion and judgment was entered for O’Dell, individually and ultimately paid.
Davis appeals from the aforesaid order and judgment and Benner cross appeals from the order and both final judgments, presenting as the sole point on appeal the propriety of the trial court’s action in setting aside the jury award on the wrongful death claim and ordering an additur or new trial.
In ordering the additur or new trial the trial court expressly relied upon section 768.043, Florida Statutes (1985), citing various aspects of the evidence which support his determination that an additur was indicated. We have considered the evidence presented and find that it fully supports the trial judge’s conclusions, recognizing full well that the trial judge, even under this statute, is no seventh juror, Laskey v. Smith, 239 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1970); Ford v. Robinson, 403 So. 2d 1379 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), nor does he have unbridled discretion in these matters. Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla.1978). However, a stronger showing is required to reverse an order granting a new trial than one denying it. Staib v. Ferrari, Inc., 391 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
In view of the record support for the trial judge’s findings no abuse of discretion has been demonstrated and the order and judgments appealed from are affirmed, both as to Bill Ray Davis and Catherine Benner. ANSTEAD and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ballard v. Am. Land Cruisers, Inc., 537 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…So. 2d 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Anderson v. Chirogianis, 384 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), writ discharged, 401 So. 2d 1322 (Fla.1981); Scott v. Andrews, 140 So. 2d 128 (Fla.3d DCA 1962), dismissed, 146 So. 2d 379 (Fla.1962); see Davis v. O’Dell, 506 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Sutton v. Logan, 184 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966); see also Johnson v. United States, 780 F. 2d 902 (11th Cir.1986) (excessiveness). Upon remand, the trial judge is ordered either to grant an additur under section 768.043(1),…
-
Rudolph J. Frei, M.D., P.A. v. Eve Alger and Donald Alger, 655 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…8). Moreover, a stronger showing of abuse of discretion is required to overturn an order granting a new trial than is required to overturn an order denying a new trial. Castle-wood Int’l Corp. v. La Fleur, 322 So. 2d 520 (Fla.1975); Davis v. O’Dell, 506 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Niebla v. Flying Tigers Line, Inc., 533 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). The supreme court has also held that when the order under consideration is deficient as failing to include the record references in support of the trial cour…
Authorities Cited
- The Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1978)
- Laskey v. Smith, 239 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1970)
- Ford v. Robinson, 403 So. 2d 1379 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Ann Marie Staib and her husband v. Ferrari, Inc., 391 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)