LAWRENCE BUTTE AND PHYLLIS BUTTE, APPELLANTS,
v.
VICKI L. HUGHES AND PHILLIP R. HUGHES, 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.
The Buttes appealed a jury verdict in their negligence action against Vicki Hughes stemming from an automobile accident, challenging the jury's zero awards for general damages and loss of consortium despite finding permanent injury. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial on these claims, finding the zero verdict grossly inadequate and inconsistent with the jury's own findings of permanent injury and award for future medical expenses.
The court reversed and remanded for a new trial on general damages and loss of consortium claims. The jury's zero verdict for general damages was grossly inadequate and totally inconsistent with its finding of permanent injury and award of future medical expenses. Similarly, the zero verdict for loss of consortium was erroneous given Mrs. Butte's unrebutted testimony about the substantial impact on the marital relationship.
[1] A jury verdict awarding future medical expenses for a permanent injury but zero general damages is inconsistent and inadequate, warranting a new trial on general damages.
[2] A zero verdict for loss of consortium is improper when the plaintiff presents unrebutted testimony of the accident's substantial impact on the marital relationship.
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 found that Mr. Butte suffered a permanent injury as a result of the accident. The jury compensated him for future medical expenses associated with that injury. The jury, however, returned a zero verdict for appellant's general damages. The jury's zero verdict for general damages was grossly inadequate and totally inconsistent with its finding of permanent injury and with its award of future medical expenses.”
Establishes the core inconsistency in the jury verdict that warranted reversal on the general damages claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn December 20, 1982, Lawrence Butte was involved in an automobile accident with Vicki Hughes. At trial, five physicians testified about Mr. Butte's i…
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 Adequacy Of Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.
On December 20, 1982, appellant, Lawrence Butte, was involved in an automobile accident with appellee, Vicki Hughes. Appellant and his wife, Phyllis Butte, brought a negligence action against appellee seeking damages including loss of consortium.
At trial, five different physicians presented their findings and prognosis regarding Mr. Butte's injury. Four found permanent injury causally related to the accident. The fifth found the injuries were related to a preexisting condition which may have been aggravated by the accident with appellee. Through the physicians’ testimony, the jury learned that Mr. Butte had sustained injuries from a series of slip and fall accidents prior to his automobile accident with appellee. The jury also viewed a video surveillance film of Mr. Butte engaged in various physical activities in his occupation as a paving contractor. The jury found that Mr. Butte sustained a permanent injury as a result of the accident and returned a $9,000.00 verdict for future medical expenses. The jury returned a zero verdict on appellants’ pain and suffering and loss of consortium claims.
Appellants filed a motion for new trial and for additur. The trial court denied appellants’ motion. This appeal is from the denial of their motion. Appellants raise two points on appeal.
First, appellants contend that the trial court erred in denying their motion for a new trial and additur where the verdict was clearly inadequate and inconsistent in its failure to award general damages. “The test to be applied in determining the adequacy of a verdict is whether a jury of reasonable men could have returned that verdict.” Griffis v. Hill, 230 So. 2d 143, 145 (Fla.1970). “A verdict for grossly inadequate damages stands on the same ground as a verdict for excessive damages, a new trial may be as readily granted in one case as the other.” Pickel v. Rosen, 214 So. 2d 730, 731 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968).
In the instant case, the jury found that Mr. Butte suffered a permanent injury as a result of the accident. The jury compensated him for future medical expenses associated with that injury. The jury, however, returned a zero verdict for appellant’s general damages. The jury’s zero verdict for general damages was grossly inadequate and totally inconsistent with its finding of permanent injury and with its award of future medical expenses. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial limited to the amount of general damages.
Appellants’ second point on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying their motion for new trial and additur on the loss of consortium claim. “When a jury finds, as in the instant case, that a husband has sustained injuries due to the negligence of a third party, the wife must present competent testimony concerning the impact which the accident had on the marital relationship and, more specifically, evidence concerning her loss of consortium.” Albritton v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 382 So. 2d 1267, 1268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).
In the instant case, Mrs. Butte presented unrebutted testimony of the substantial impact the accident had upon her marital life. She testified that since the accident she and her husband no longer went dancing, fishing, and so on. As noted above, appellee failed to rebut this testimony and, in fact, on cross-examination, appellee’s questions related solely to one of Mr. Butte’s prior injuries. Accordingly, we also reverse the trial court’s denial of appellants' motion for new trial on the loss of consortium claim.
Thus, we affirm the jury’s finding of permanent injury and award of future medical expenses and reverse the jury’s zero verdicts on appellants’ general damages and loss of consortium claims. We remand this case to the trial court for a new trial on the appellants’ general damages and loss of consortium claims.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
SCHOONOVER and FRANK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Myrda Manasse, 681 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…to afford great latitude to the jury in its determinations as to these damages. The evidence in this regard in the instant case reflects the uncertainty of predicting future pain and suffering. Dyes, at 704. The majority relies on Butte v. Hughes, 521 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), describing it as “factually similar”; however, in that case the jury awarded nothing for past non-economic damages. The majority has not cited a single case in which an appellate court ordered a new trial under the circumstances…1 / 2
-
DeLONG v. The Wickes Co., 545 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…. (1987). Nor do we find any abuse of discretion based on the present record in the amount of the additur ordered by the trial court. The additur, in effect, cured the jury’s misconception of the law on the consortium issue. But see Butte v. Hughes, 521 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (new trial demanded on loss of consortium claim where trial court denied both the claiming spouse’s motion for new trial and motion for additur). We hold therefore that the additur as to Mr. DeLong effectively corrected the jury’s…
-
Lofley v. Insultech, Inc., 527 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…of the trial judge in denying Mr. Lofley’s motion for a new trial. We find merit, however, in Mrs. Lofley’s contention that she is entitled to a new trial on her loss of consortium claim. Three cases from this court are analogous: Butte v. Hughes, 521 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Albritton v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 382 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); and Webber v. Jordan, 366 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 374 So. 2d 102 (Fla.1979). As we stated in Albritton, the test for…
Previewing 3 of 10 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)
- Albritton v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. & Cheryl Lee Dannels, 382 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Pickel v. Rosen, 214 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)