MARIANNE SHORT AND DONALD SHORT, APPELLANTS,
v.
DONALD EHRLER AND GARY EHRLER, 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 negligence case involving a rear-end automobile collision, the jury returned a zero verdict on damages despite uncontroverted expert testimony that the plaintiff sustained some aggravation of a preexisting injury. The court reversed, holding that the jury's verdict was unreasonable as a matter of law because all medical evidence established at least nominal damages.
The jury's zero verdict was unreasonable as a matter of law and cannot stand. When there is uncontroverted expert testimony that a plaintiff suffered some damages from a defendant's negligently caused collision, the jury could not reasonably return a zero verdict, and at minimum nominal damages must be awarded.
[1] A jury verdict awarding zero damages is unreasonable when there is uncontroverted expert testimony that the plaintiff sustained some damages, even if the extent of those…
[2] In a case where liability is admitted, a jury cannot return a zero verdict on damages if there is any evidence, including expert testimony or concessions by the defense,…
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 jury could conclude that the damages as a result of this accident were not causally related to the damages she sustained”
The trial court's erroneous reasoning for denying the motion for a new trial; the appellate court rejected this rationale because all evidence showed some causal connection and damages.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff's automobile was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by one of the defendants. Defendants stipulated to liability. Plaintiff had a preexisting ba…
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 Causation Of Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Judge.
The question presented is whether the jury erred by returning a zero verdict despite uncontroverted expert testimony that the plaintiff had, in fact, sustained some damages. The trial court denied the motion for a new trial holding “that the jury could conclude that the damages as a result of this accident were not causally related to the damages she sustained.” We reverse.
In this case, the plaintiff/driver’s automobile was rear-ended by another vehicle driven by one of the defendants. There is no issue as to liability for the accident, to which the defendants stipulated, and the case went to the jury solely on the issue of damages. The defense centered on a preexisting back injury resulting from an epileptic fit dating back several years before the automobile collision now at issue.
The plaintiffs two medical experts, while conceding the preexisting injury, unequivocally testified that there was an identifiable aggravation because of the car accident, resulting in at least a twelve percent permanent functional impairment. Even the Doctor named by the defense testified that some aggravation “could” have resulted from the car accident though he testified that no more than a “small degree” of the permanent impairment percentage could be related to the automobile mishap. As a consequence, there was no testimony whatever that her condition was not aggravated so that, at the very least, nominal damages should have been awarded.
Based on the closing argument, it is obvious that even the defense conceded that some aggravation occurred from the auto collision and the defense’s concluding statement was as follows:
I’m not trying to say to you ladies and gentlemen that she walked away from that automobile accident without any problems. [The defense’s expert medical witness] has told us that she has some aggravation of a significant pre-existing problem. That’s going to be up for you to decide.
[Plaintiff’s counsel] has suggested a range of $150,000 to $175,000. I don’t know where that comes from. I would respectfully suggest to you that in a range of $20,000 to $25,000 would more than adequately compensate the [plaintiff’s] for the position that they have been placed in.
I thank you very much for your attention.
Accordingly, since it was undisputed that the plaintiff suffered some damages from the collision negligently caused by the defendants, the jury could not reasonably have returned a zero verdict. See Griffis v. Hill, 230 So. 2d 143 (Fla.1969), and Par-ris v. Gavagan, 271 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972).
Though not necessary to our conclusion, and only as a guide on retrial, we also find it was error not to admit the medical notes of Doctor Ford. See section 90.803(4), Florida Statutes (1985), albeit their contents were cumulative and their exclusion harmless error. The Final Judgment is, therefore, reversed and this cause remanded for a new trial.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
GLICKSTEIN and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morey v. Harper, 541 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…no permanent injury will be found to be contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence 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 n…
-
Parker v. Hoppock, 695 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…sel in' closing argument suggested was reasonable. While a jury is not bound by lawyers’ arguments regarding amounts, those arguments are certainly relevant in determining the reasonableness of the jury’s decision. See, e.g., [*429] Short v. Ehrler, 510 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Defendants Hoppoek, J & P and Hart have not demonstrated that the error here was harmless. See Gormley, 587 So. 2d at 459. Because we cannot state that the improper testimony and related references in closing argument did not a…
-
Nadia Bach and Ronald Carter v. Murray, 658 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…ntitled to a new trial. McCloud, 579 So. 2d at 774; Molinari v. Florida Key Elec. Coop. Ass’n, 545 So. 2d 322, 324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (citing Hartsfield v. Orlando Regional Medical Ctr., Inc., 522 So. 2d 66, 68 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)); Short v. Ehrler, 510 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Vega v. Mahfuz, 367 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 378 So. 2d 346 (Fla.1979); Worley v. Kirkland, 360 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Perez v. American Mut. Liab. Ins. Co., 288 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); Hancock v.…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Griffis v. Hill, 230 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 1969)
- Parris v. Gavagan, 271 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)