ROMA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
MORRIS ALAN GOODMAN, RESPONDENT
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 court clarifies that its prior opinion did not mandate a new trial on liability, only on damages.
[1] A new trial on damages, absent specific limitation by the appellate court, mandates a complete new trial on all aspects of damages.
[2] An appellate court's reversal for a new trial on damages requires a full retrial of damages unless the appellate opinion explicitly limits the scope of the new trial.
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 intelligenceThe court is reconsidering its prior opinion after a petition for clarification. The defendant sought to retry the liability issue, which had been aff…
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 New Trial On Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Roma Construction Company, Inc., [Roma] petitions for certiorari review of the trial court’s order limiting the new trial to the amount of damages suffered by Officer Morris Alan Goodman. We grant review and quash the trial court’s order. Officer Goodman was injured as he exited his police vehicle at a Roma construction site. He sued Roma for damages for his injuries. Roma failed to answer, and the trial court entered a default against it on the issue of liability. The trial proceeded on the issue of damages.
The trial court impermissibly permitted collateral source references and materials to be admitted; the jury returned a verdict of $500,000. Goodman appealed, alleging error in allowing reference to collateral sources and in the adequacy of the jury verdict. This court found reversible error in the admission of the collateral source information and reversed for a new trial on damages. Goodman v. Roma Constr. Co., Inc., 537 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), review denied, 544 So. 2d 200 (Fla.1989).
Upon remand, the trial court granted Goodman’s motion to limit the issue at trial to the amount of damages suffered, and declined to permit any testimony as to medical causation. We quash the trial court’s order. Our opinion stated specifically that a new trial on damages was required. The opinion did not limit the new trial to the amount of damages, see, e.g., Florida Util. Co. v. Wester, 146 Fla. 559, 1 So. 2d 561 (1941); Eassa v. Palmer, 140 Fla. 835, 192 So. 410 (1939); Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Archer, 126 Fla. 308, 171 So. 214 (1936), and in the absence of any such limitation, a complete new trial on damages is mandated. Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Boone, 85 So. 2d 834 (Fla.1956); Kenan v. Black, 150 Fla. 208, 7 So. 2d 462 (1942); Pavlis v. Atlas-Imperial Diesel Engine Co., 121 Fla. 185, 163 So. 515 (1935); Cousins Constr. Co. No. III, Inc. v. Black, Crow & Eidsness, Inc., 488 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 492 So. 2d 1330 (Fla.1986).
Petition for writ of certiorari granted; order quashed.
ON APPELLEE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING OR CLARIFICATION
Our December 19, 1989, opinion in this case is not a retreat from the holding in Goodman v. Roma Constr. Co., Inc., 537 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), rev. denied, 544 So. 2d 200 (Fla.1989), which reversed and remanded for a “new trial on damages.” That holding is the unambiguous law of the case.
The basis for the opinion on the petition for certiorari in this post-mandate review was to make clear that the jury, at the new trial, may consider evidence of a pre-exist-ing condition in determining the amount of damages to be assessed against the defendant. Contrary to the defendant’s interpretation, it is not intended that the liability issue — which was not cross-appealed by the defendant — is also to be retried.
Reversal was ordered in the original appeal because the defendant improperly brought evidence of collateral source benefits before the jury, which may have prejudiced the finding on damages. The prejudice to the plaintiff on the damage issue, caused by the defendant, is no basis for granting the defendant a new trial on the liability finding. Central Taxi Serv., Inc. v. Greenberg, 418 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (where jury finding on liability was not infected by impropriety a remand for a new trial on damages did not require a new trial on liability). The trial judge was eminently correct in construing our opinion as an affirmance of the jury verdict on liability.
Rehearing is denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Palm BAY v. State, 588 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…r directing the course of the cause thereafter.” Lucom v. Potter, 131 So. 2d 724, 726 (Fla.1961). Accord City of Pensacola v. Capital Realty Roofing Co., Inc., 417 So. 2d 687, 688 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). See also Roma Construction Co., Inc. v. Goodman, 557 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Palm Bay relies upon language in the opening paragraph of the prior opinion in this cause as support for its contention that the cause was remanded with general directions. We disagree. The final sen [*628] tence in the first pa…
-
Aquilla McFARLIN v. Jack Eckerd Corp., 581 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…new trial on the uncontroverted liability issue. Where a jury finding on liability is not affected by an impropriety in the case on damages, a remand for a new trial on damages does not require a new trial on liability. Roma Constr. Co. v. Goodman, 557 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Central Taxi Serv., Inc. v. Greenberg, 418 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a new trial on damages.…
-
Bombardier Aerospace Corp. v. Signature Flight Support Corp., 123 So. 3d 128 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…Co., 128 Tex. 140, 96 S.W. 2d 231, 232 (1936)). As a new trial on damages only is required, Signature may present the testimony of its expert, Wayne Muhler, or any other evidence on this issue, if relevant. See generally Roma Constr. Co. v. Goodman, 557 So. 2d 58, 58-59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (holding that trial court improperly limited issue to amount of damages suffered on appellate court’s order requiring new trial on damages); City of Pensacola v. Capital Realty Holding Co., 417 So. 2d 687, 688 (Fla. 1st DCA…
Authorities Cited
- Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Archer, 126 Fla. 308 (Fla. 1936)
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Frona Mae Boone and Helen Goff, 85 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 1956)
- Nikitas Pavlis v. Atlas-Imperial Diesel Engine Co., 121 Fla. 185 (Fla. 1935)
- Kenan v. Black, 150 Fla. 208 (Fla. 1942)
- Goodman v. Roma Constr. Co., Inc., 537 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Eassa v. Palmer, 140 Fla. 835 (Fla. 1939)
- Cousins Constr. Co. NO. III, Inc. v. Black, 488 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Cent. Taxi Serv., Inc. v. Greenberg, 418 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Fla. Utils. Co. v. Phoebe S. Wester, 146 Fla. 559 (Fla. 1941)