SHIRLEY M. SMITH AND RAYMOND B. SMITH, APPELLANTS,
v.
SANDY D. HOUSTON AND WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC., 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 Smiths appealed a personal injury damages award following a garbage truck accident. The court affirmed the jury's verdict on Mrs. Smith's claim but reversed and remanded the trial court's denial of a new trial on Mr. Smith's loss of consortium claim, finding he was entitled to at least nominal damages based on substantial, unrebutted testimony of the accident's impact on their marital life.
The court affirmed the denial of Mrs. Smith's motion for new trial but reversed and remanded on Mr. Smith's loss of consortium claim. Where damages are awarded to an injured spouse and substantial, unrebutted testimony establishes that the accident substantially impacted the couple's marital life, the spouse claiming loss of consortium is entitled to at least nominal damages.
[1] A jury may reject claims for pain and suffering, future medical expenses, and loss of earning ability based on conflicting expert medical opinions and challenges to the p…
[2] A jury may attribute damages to a plaintiff's pre-existing condition rather than to the accident at issue.
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“where damages are awarded to the injured spouse and a loss of consortium claim is filed, the spouse claiming loss of consortium is entitled to at least nominal damages if there is substantial, unrebutted testimony that the accident has had a substantial impact on the couple's marital life.”
Establishes the legal standard for awarding loss of consortium damages based on Lofley precedent
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA garbage truck owned by Waste Management struck the Smiths' van driven by Mrs. Smith. The defendants admitted liability. Mrs. Smith was injured and u…
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 Personal Injury Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
PARKER, Judge.
Shirley and Raymond Smith, who were the plaintiffs in the trial court, appeal the amount of damages awarded to them in a personal injury suit and the trial court’s denial of their motion for new trial. We affirm in part but reverse on the trial court’s denial of a new trial on the consortium claim of Mr. Smith.
This case arose from an accident where a garbage truck owned, by defendant Waste Management struck the plaintiffs’ van which was being driven by Mrs. Smith. The defendants admitted liability, and the trial proceeded on the issue of damages. The jury awarded Mrs. Smith $20,000 for medical expenses, loss of earnings, and loss of services in the past. The jury returned a zero dollar verdict for past and future pain and suffering and zero dollars for Mr. Smith’s derivative claim for past and future loss of consortium.
We affirm the denial of the motion for new trial on the issue of the verdict in favor of Mrs. Smith. Evidence concerning Mrs. Smith’s medical history, along with conflicting expert medical opinion and challenges to Mrs. Smith’s credibility, could have led the jury to reject claims for pain and suffering, future medical expenses, and loss of earning ability. The jury could have disbelieved the testimony or attributed these damages to Mrs. Smith’s preexisting condition. This court must assume that the jury considered all elements of damages. See Fitzgerald v. Molle-Teeters, 520 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 529 So. 2d 694 (Fla.1988).
As to Mr. Smith, who is a paraplegic, on his claim for loss of consortium, testimony was offered from two of Mrs. Smith’s friends and her two adult children. This testimony reflected that prior to the accident Mrs. Smith was responsible for her own housework, cooking, and yard care, and individually providing for her husband’s nursing, health care, and personal care on a full time basis. The witnesses testified that following the accident, Mrs. Smith had undergone a personality change, was cross, needed help with her housework and yardwork, failed to keep a clean house, and exhibited no patience with Mr. Smith.
In Lofley v. Insultech, Inc., 527 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), this court presented an overview of cases involving denial of a new trial on a loss of consortium claim. Lofley and the cases cited therein hold that where damages are awarded to the injured spouse and a loss of consortium claim is filed, the spouse claiming loss of consortium is entitled to at least nominal damages if there is substantial, unrebutted testimo-' ny that the accident has had a substantial impact on the couple’s marital life. Evidence presented by Mr. and Mrs. Smith was substantially unrebutted and did establish a deteriorating home situation, as was observed in Lofley.
We affirm the denial of Mrs. Smith’s motion for a new trial. We reverse the denial of Mr. Smith's motion for a new trial on his consortium claim and remand for a new trial on the count in the complaint alleging loss of consortium.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harris Katz and Robert Katz v. Medhi Ghodsi and Valeria Ghodsi, 682 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…en, 643 So. 2d 1134, 1135 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), review denied, 661 So. 2d 827 (Fla.1995); Rice v. Everett, 630 So. 2d 1184, 1186 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Perez, 622 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Smith v. Houston, 551 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), review denied, 564 So. 2d 1086 (Fla.1990). Here there was lay testimony, and a certain amount of expert testimony, which contradicted the plaintiffs position and/or supported defendant’s position. Having granted the directed ver…
-
Leamon v. Anabel Punales and Eduardo Punales, 582 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…oncerning the accident’s impact on the couple’s married life, the trial court did not err in denying appellants’ motion for a new trial on the husband’s loss of consortium claim. Frye v. Suttles, 568 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Smith v. Houston, 551 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), review denied, 564 So. 2d 1086 (Fla.1990); Lofley v. Insultech, Inc., 527 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). We therefore affirm the final judgment and the order denying the motion for new trial. Affirmed. BASKIN and GERSTEN, JJ.,…
-
Princess Valinzo and James Valinzo v. Cem-Kam, Inc., 698 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…testimony of the McDonald’s witnesses, the jury could have even concluded that the nasogastric lavage treatment was unnecessary in that Mrs. Valinzo actually experienced no significant symptoms requiring such drastic treatment. Cf. Smith v. Houston, 551 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Without knowing exactly what expenses were included in the jury’s award, there were sufficient diagnostic tests given, which the jury could have concluded were reasonably necessary to determine whether the accident had caused in…
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
- Fitzgerald v. Molle-Teeters, 520 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Lofley v. Insultech, Inc., 527 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)