RAMON FIGUEREDO AND JERRI FIGUEREDO, APPELLANTS,
v.
KELLER INDUSTRIES, INC., APPELLEE
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 Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed a personal injury judgment against Keller Industries, finding multiple trial errors including improper exclusion of evidence, restriction of expert testimony, and awards of damages that were shockingly inadequate as a matter of law. The court remanded for a new trial on liability and damages issues.
The trial court erred in all four respects. The zero consortium verdict was improper despite the spouse not testifying when undisputed evidence showed some damages were sustained. The intangible damage awards were shockingly inadequate in light of uncontradicted evidence of herniated discs and pain and suffering. The restriction on the police officer's testimony on accident causation was improper. The exclusion of the guilty plea evidence was error.
[1] A zero verdict for loss of consortium is erroneous when there is undisputed evidence of at least some damages, even if the claimant did not testify.
[2] Awards for intangible damages are shockingly inadequate when contradicted by evidence of significant injuries and undisputed past and future pain and suffering.
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“there was undisputed evidence that at least some damages in this regard were sustained”
Establishes that loss of consortium damages could be awarded even without the spouse's testimony when evidence of injury was undisputed
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRamon and Jerri Figueredo were injured in an accident involving a truck driven by an employee of Keller Industries. Ramon Figueredo sustained two hern…
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 Pain And Suffering Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
We find merit in each of the appellants’ claims of error below. Specifically, the trial court (a) erroneously approved a zero verdict for the loss of consortium claimed by Ms. Figueredo notwithstanding that, although she did not herself testify, see Wills v. Snapper Creek Nursing Home, 465 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), pet. for review denied, 476 So. 2d 675 (Fla.1985), there was undisputed evidence that at least some damages in this regard were sustained, Frye v. Suttles, 568 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Kinne v. Burgin, 311 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975);
(b) incorrectly concluded that the awards of $5,000 for past and $5,000 for future intangible damages were not shockingly inadequate in the face of uncontra-dicted evidence that Figueredo had sustained two herniated discs, with accompanying undisputed past and future pain and suffering as a result of the accident, see Diaz v. Xtra Super Food Centers, Inc., 579 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), and cases cited;
(c) improperly restricted the investigating police officer from expressing a decisive opinion as to the manner in which the accident occurred. This ruling is sustaina ble neither as an appropriate enforcement of a pretrial order, see First Republic Corp. v. Hayes, 431 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), pet. for review denied, 441 So. 2d 632 (Fla.1983); Fogel v. Mirmelli, 413 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), nor as a proper restriction of expert testimony. See Kerr v. Caraway, 78 So. 2d 571 (Fla.1955); Zwinge v. Hettinger, 530 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); and (d) incorrectly excluded evidence that the defendant’s truck driver had pled guilty by mail as to a traffic charge in which a personal appearance was required by section 318.19, Florida Statutes (1989). See Boshnack v. World Wide Rent-A-Car, Inc., 195 So. 2d 216 (Fla.1967); Mackey v. Reserve Ins. Co., 349 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Even if — which we need not decide — we agreed with the majority rather than Judge Nimmons’s well-reasoned dissent in Carter v. Rukab, 437 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), the facts of this case do not invoke the exception to the admissibility-of-guilty-plea-rule applied there.
In accordance with these holdings, the judgment below is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial as to the issues which may be fairly said to have been impacted by the errors in question; that is, liability, including causation and comparative negligence, and all elements of damages, with the exception of past and future medical expenses and lost earnings. We specifically see no reason to order a new trial as to the earnings question, for which zero was awarded, because that verdict was based on the jury’s resolution of severely disputed testimony unrelated to any of the rulings we have found incorrect. See D.R. Mead & Co. v. Cheshire of Florida, Inc., 489 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dyes v. Spick, 606 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…s were shockingly inadequate in the face of uncontradicted evidence that the plaintiff had sustained two herniated discs, with accompanying undisputed past and future pain and suffering as the result of an accident. Figueredo v. Keller Indus., Inc., 583 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), rev. denied, 595 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). On the other hand, the supreme court has noted that not every verdict which raises a judicial eyebrow would shock the judicial conscience. Laskey v. Smith, supra. Fortunately, review…
-
Emory Dozier & Crete Carrier Corp. v. Hodges, 849 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…14(4), Fla. Stat. (1997); Galgano v. Buchanan, 783 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Turco v. Leon, 559 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 574 So. 2d 141 (Fla.1990). We note that the defendants’ reliance on Figueredo v. Keller Industries, Inc., 583 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 595 So. 2d 52 (Fla.1991), is misplaced because in that case the driver had pled guilty by mail to a traffic charge that by statute required a personal appearance. Further, the trial court properly excluded the police…
-
Doughty v. Ins. Co. OF N. Am., 701 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…ch the issue is simply whether the verdict, increased by the additur of $8,000 for future pain and suffering and future medical expenses, is grossly inadequate. See Dyes v. Spick, 606 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Figueredo v. Keller Indus., Inc., 583 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Soto v. Dolgen Corp., 665 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). As we noted earlier, plaintiffs treating physician testified that she had a very serious knee injury and that she would ultimately need replacement of the knee cap or th…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (13 total)
- Kerr v. Caraway, 78 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 1955)
- First Republic Corp. OF Am. v. Hayes, 431 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Fogel v. Mirmelli, 413 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Zwinge v. Hettinger, 530 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- D.R. Mead & Co. v. Cheshire OF Fla., Inc., 489 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- McDOUGALD v. State, 568 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- S. Broward Hosp. Dist. v. Schmitt, 195 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1967)
- Boshnack v. World Wide Rent-A-Car, Inc., 195 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1967)
- Gale Kinne v. Burgin, 311 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Carter v. Musa Tony Rukab & S.C. Ins. Co., 437 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)