ARNOLD SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM RAYMOND TURNER, 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.
Arnold Smith appeals a jury verdict that awarded damages for past medical expenses but not for pain and suffering in a personal injury case arising from a motor vehicle accident. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial because the jury's failure to award pain and suffering damages was inconsistent with its finding of permanent injury.
The court held that a jury award for past medical damages combined with a finding of permanent injury, but no award for pain and suffering, is inconsistent and requires remand for a new trial on all issues presented to the jury. The court reversed the trial court's denial of Smith's motion for new trial.
[1] A claim of an inadequate jury verdict, rather than an inconsistent verdict, is properly preserved for appeal by a post-trial motion for additur or a new trial.
[2] A jury's award of zero damages for past pain and suffering is inadequate as a matter of law when there is undisputed evidence that the plaintiff experienced pain as a res…
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“It is uncontroverted that Smith had endured pain and suffering as a result of a herniated disc.”
Establishes that evidence of pain and suffering was undisputed, making the jury's failure to award damages for it problematic.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSmith was injured when Turner's vehicle struck the rear of the vehicle in which Smith was a passenger. The evidence indicated Smith sustained a hernia…
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
PETERSON, Judge.
William Raymond Turner’s motion for rehearing is granted, and we substitute the following opinion for an earlier version.
Arnold Smith, plaintiff below, appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for new trial and additur after a jury trial on the issue of damages only; Turner had previously admitted liability. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
Smith was injured when William Turner ran his vehicle into the rear of the vehicle in which Smith was a passenger. Although Smith had experienced back pain from an earlier work-related accident and was involved in another auto accident about six weeks after the accident with Turner, the jury returned a verdict specifically finding that, as a result of Turner’s negligence, Smith had sustained a permanent injury. The evidence presented during trial indi cates that the injury may have been a herniated disc. The problem that arises for consideration on this appeal is that, while an award was made for past medical damages, the jury made no award for pain and suffering. Both parties to this appeal agree that a finding of a permanent injury would have been inconsistent with a zero-damages verdict under Hartsfield v. Orlando Regional Medical Center, Inc., 522 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), but they disagree on whether a new trial on damages is necessary where one type of damages was awarded but other damages were denied.
It is uncontroverted that Smith had endured pain and suffering as a result of a herniated disc. The defendant’s expert medical witness admitted that consideration should be given to removal of the disc, and Smith’s expert testified that a permanent impairment of twelve percent of the body as a whole had resulted from the accident. The only testimony detrimental to an award of damages, but a credit to Smith, was that Smith, a bodybuilding enthusiast, appeared before the jury as an extremely well-built, dark-tanned, young man and that, after being told by his physician of the herniated disc, he had obtained employment as a Volusia County lifeguard by passing a rigorous physical test.
This court has previously considered the absence of an award by a jury for pain and suffering in the face of evidence of its existence and has remanded for a new trial on the issue of damages only. Ledbetter v. Todd, 418 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Anderson v. Chirogianis, 384 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), writ discharged, 401 So. 2d 1322 (Fla.1981). We remand for a new trial on all issues presented to the jury in the first trial.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
W. SHARP and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dolphin Cruise Line, Inc. v. Stylianos Stassinopoulos, 731 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Een v. Rice, 637 So. 2d 331, 332-33 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Daigneault v. Gache, 624 So. 2d 818, 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Harrison v. Housing Resources Management, Inc., 588 So. 2d 64, 66-67 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Smith v. Turner, 585 So. 2d 395, 396 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Thornburg v. Pursell, 446 So. 2d 713, 714 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); but see Allstate Indem. Co. v. Clark, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D2051, D2052, — So. 2d -, 1998 WL 558733 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 4, [*711] 1998) (holding “a verdict which fai…
-
Simpson v. Julita Stone, 662 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…a new trial because “[t]he jury’s zero verdict for general damages was grossly inadequate and totally inconsistent with its finding of permanent injury and with its award of future medical expenses.” Id. at 281 (emphasis added). In Smith v. Turner, 585 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), rev. denied, 595 So. 2d 559 (Fla.1992), this court considered a verdict similar to Butte and the instant case in that the jury found the plaintiff sustained a permanent injury, made an award for past medical damages, but award […
-
Scott v. Sims, 874 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…amages inconsistently, thereby implying a compromise on liability or confusion on the law of damages. See, e.g., Een v. Rice, 637 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Lindenfield v. Dorazio by Dorazio, 606 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Smith v. Turner, 585 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Rivera v. Aldrich, 538 So. 2d 1390 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Although Scott admitted negligence in both his answer and his opening statement, and the trial court itself initialed that portion of the verdict form stating that the negl…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Chirogianis v. Anderson, 401 So. 2d 1322 (Fla. 1981)
- Anderson v. Chirogianis, 384 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Hartsfield v. Orlando Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc., 522 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)
- J. R. Ledbetter, M.D. v. Todd, 418 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)