CONTESA GISSENDANNER
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 affirmed liability but amended the damage award, reducing general damages from $55,000 to $27,500 and special damages from $5,000 to $2,777.95, finding the jury's award excessive where the evidence established bleach ingestion caused minimal injury with no long-term medical effects.
[1] A jury's award of damages may be deemed excessive if it is not supported by the facts in the record.
[2] When an appellate court finds a damage award to be excessive, it may reduce the award to the highest amount that would have been within the trial court's discretion.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“”
Expert testimony supporting that bleach ingestion causes minimal harm, contrasting with lye's serious effects.
Previewing 1 of 4 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceConnie Lewis, a hospital patient, accidentally ingested bleach from a plastic cup placed on his meal tray at St. Frances Cabrini Hospital on July 10, …
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 Investigative Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the judgment and sentence entered against Contesa Gissendanner for DUI Manslaughter and DUI Resulting in Injury to Person or Property in all respects except one. Because the award for costs of investigation was not supported by competent, substantial evidence, we reverse the imposition of $8752 in investigative costs and remand with instructions to hold a new hearing. See Negron v. State, 44 Fla.
L. Weekly D783 (Fla. 5th DCA Mar. 22, 2019) (remanding for new hearing where award of investigative costs was not supported by competent, substantial evidence); see also Williams v. State, 850 So. 2d 627, 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (reversing for new restitution hearing where award was based solely on contested hearsay evidence (citing Sherwood v. State, 832 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002))). AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED with instructions.
ORFINGER, BERGER and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 850 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Jomar Morales Negron v. State, 266 So. 3d 1266 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)
- Sherwood v. State, 832 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)