FRANK LOCASTRO, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES J. RUANE, ET AL., 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 Ruanes sued LoCastro for damages from restaurant renovations and obtained a $28,000 jury verdict. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial on damages, finding the verdict was based on speculation and conjecture rather than documented evidence of actual expenditures.
The court held that the damage award was improper because it lacked evidentiary support beyond the $6,424.11 in documented expenses. A definite amount of damages must be established through evidence, not speculation or conjecture, and the trial court must grant a new trial on the damages issue.
[1] A jury verdict for damages cannot be predicated upon guesswork and speculation.
[2] Evidence must be presented to establish a definite amount of damages.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Evidence must be presented to establish a definite amount of damages. An award cannot be based on speculation or conjecture.”
Establishes the fundamental legal principle that damage awards require definite evidentiary support, not speculation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Ruanes performed renovation work on LoCastro's restaurant building and sued for damages. At trial, the Ruanes testified they had receipts and canc…
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 Proof Of Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
Appellees, James J. Ruane and James P. Ruane (father and son), sued the appellant, Frank LoCastro, for damages incurred as a result of renovations they made to LoCas-tro’s restaurant building. On appeal, Lo-Castro challenges the jury verdict for $28,-000 for James P. Ruane on the basis that it was improperly predicated upon guesswork and speculation.1 LoCastro argues that despite James P. Ruane’s testimony at trial and deposition that he had receipts and cancelled checks to prove all of his expenditures during renovation, the total amount of the documentation introduced into evidence was only $6,424.11. Ruane contends the verdict is proper, based on his testimony at trial that he started into the renovation project with more than $28,000, and was essentially out of funds (some $500 to $600 was left) when it was complete. Ruane’s analysis, however, cannot serve as proof of legal damages recoverable in court.
We agree with LoCastro that the damage evidence, over and above the total amount of the documentary evidence, was vague and speculative. No evidence whatsoever was presented at trial pertaining to any individual item of services or materials other than that pertaining to the $6,424. No expert witness even estimated the cost or value of such items; for that matter, neither did either one of the Ruanes or any of their lay witnesses. Other than the can-celled checks and receipts, there is no way to tell from the instant record what work the Ruanes claim to have done on the property, and yet, the Ruanes both testified that their expenditures were represented by the receipts and cancelled checks which were produced at trial. Evidence must be presented to establish a definite amount of damages. An award cannot be based on speculation or conjecture. See Florida Ventilated Awning Co. v. Dickson, 67 So. 2d 215 (Fla.1953); Van Der Noord v. Katz, 481 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); George Hunt, Inc. v. Dorsey Young Construction, Inc., 385 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).
We reverse the $28,000 judgment and remand with directions that the trial judge grant a new trial on the issue of damages as requested by the appellant. LoCastro’s claim that an improper “Golden Rule” argument was made to the jury is without merit. See Shaffer v. Ward, 510 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ORFINGER, J., and UPCHURCH, F.D., Jr., Associate Judge, concur. . The jury returned a $1.00 verdict for James J. Ruane. This award is not at issue on this appeal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McCARTHY Bros. Co. v. Tilbury Constr., Inc., 849 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…So. 2d 722, 725 (Fla.1985); Regency Lake Apartments Assocs., Ltd. v. French, 590 So. 2d 970, 975 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). . See, e.g., Carrousel International Corp. v. Auction Co. of America, Inc., 674 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); LoCastro v. Ruane, 525 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). .See § 768.74(1), Fla. Stat. (2001); see also Carrousel International Corp., 674 So. 2d at 163. . § 768.74(4), Fla. Stat. (2001); see also Gould v. Nat’l Bank of Fla., 421 So. 2d 798, 802 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (noting "[i]t is al…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Ventilated Awning Co., Inc. v. Dickson, 67 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 1953)
- Van Der Noord v. Katz, 481 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- George Hunt, Inc. v. Dorsey Young Constr., Inc., 385 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Shaffer v. Ward, 510 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)