PABLO MASDEU, APPELLANT,
v.
FRANCISCO V. QUINTERO AND JUAN F. QUINTERO, 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.
Plaintiff Masdeu appealed a judgment awarding zero damages in a negligence action arising from an automobile accident, despite a jury verdict finding liability and assessing damages at $11,500. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to override the jury's damage award, finding no abuse of discretion and noting that the evidence did not support the jury's damage assessment.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion or commit reversible error in declining to enter a judgment for the plaintiff for $11,500 and instead awarding zero damages, as the evidence adduced at trial did not support the jury's damage assessment. Additionally, the plaintiff waived any right to a new trial on damages by declining to accept any award less than $11,500 and failing to file a motion for a new trial on damages.
[1] A trial court may decline to enter a judgment for a plaintiff when the evidence adduced at trial does not support the jury's damage award.
[2] A plaintiff waives the right to a new trial on damages by declining to accept any award less than the amount sought and by not filing a motion for a new trial on damages…
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“the trial court did not abuse its discretion or otherwise commit reversible error, as urged, in making such a finding and in declining to enter a judgment for the plaintiff for $11,500”
Establishes the standard of review and the court's holding that the trial court properly exercised discretion in rejecting the jury's damage award
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePablo Masdeu was involved in an automobile accident with defendants Francisco V. Quintero and Juan F. Quintero. A jury, using a special interrogatory …
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 Permanent Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff Pablo Masdeu from an adverse final judgment entered following a jury verdict in a negligence action arising out of an automobile accident.
The jury, in a special interrogatory verdict, found for the plaintiff on the issues of liability and comparative negligence, found that the plaintiff had sustained no permanent injury, and assessed the plaintiff’s total damages at $11,500.
The trial court, however, declined to enter a judgment for the plaintiff in the above amount on the theory that the evidence adduced at trial did not support such an award, and instead entered a judgment awarding zero damages to the plaintiff.
We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion or otherwise commit reversible error, as urged, in making such a finding and in declining to enter a judgment for the plaintiff for $11,500. See Seaboard Air Line R.R. v. Ford, 92 So. 2d 160, 163 (Fla.1956); Morgan v. Collier County Motors, Inc., 193 So. 2d 35, 39 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966). But cf. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Shilling, 374 So. 2d 611, 613 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979) (sufficient evidence shown); Ochoa v. Lopez, 358 So. 2d 1173, 1174 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (evidence was not speculative).
Moreover, the plaintiff did not file a motion for a new trial on damages below and further declined to accept any award which was less than $11,500. Instead, the plaintiff urged below and urges in his brief that the trial court’s error was in failing to enter a judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $11,500; as previously stated, there was no such error committed below. This being so, and given the plaintiff’s waiver of any right to a new trial on damages, the final judgment under review is, in all respects,
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Seaboard AIR Line R.R. Co. v. Ford, 92 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 1955)
- Morgan v. Collier Cnty. Motors, Inc., 193 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Martinez v. Tamayo, 374 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Shilling, 374 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Ochoa v. Lopez, 358 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)