DONALD WALDRON AND RUBY WALDRON, APPELLANTS,
v.
GWENDOLYN ELAINE DORSEY, N.S.L., INC. AND NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION, APPELLEES

Fla. 1st DCA | 1991-08-27
No. 90-3788
WOLF, J., and WENTWORTH, Senior Judge, concur.
585 So. 2d 403 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1991) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases

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.

Holding

The court held that the jury should have awarded at least nominal damages for loss of consortium, even if other damages were substantial.

Facts & Procedural History

Appellants suffered injuries in a traffic accident and sued for personal injuries and loss of consortium. Liability was admitted, and the jury awarded…

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.

Topics
Loss Of Consortium

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Loss Of Consortium cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
WIGGINTON, Judge.

WIGGINTON, Judge.

Appellants, husband and wife, appeal an order denying their motion for new trial on their loss of consortium claims in their personal injury action against appellees. The suit arose from a traffic accident in which both appellants suffered injuries. We reverse and remand for a new trial on the issues of lost consortium.

At trial, appellees admitted liability. Therefore, only the issues of damages were presented to the jury. The jury returned a verdict awarding substantial damages to each appellant for past and future lost earnings, pain and suffering and medical expenses. The jury returned zero verdicts, however, on appellants’ claims of past and future loss of consortium.

Although, as appellees assert, some of the evidence as to the parties’ consortium claims was conflicting and reflected losses which were otherwise compensated in the jury verdict awarding damages on the other claims, appellants did present some substantial, undisputed evidence from which at least nominal damages should have been returned. For example, the evidence shows that both parties underwent surgery at least twice as a result of their injuries and both endured convalescent periods during which their abilities to perform normal household and familial duties necessarily were diminished. Thus, while other evidence in the record may serve to diminish certain portions of the consortium claims, sufficient undisputed evidence was presented to require an award of at least nominal damages. Compare Christopher v. Bonifay, 577 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) and Jenkins v. West, 463 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial on the consortium claims.

WOLF, J., and WENTWORTH, Senior Judge, concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Aurbach v. Gallina, 721 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
    …ins, 668 So. 2d 311, 312 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). On a consortium claim, where sufficient undisputed evidence was presented that would require an award of at least nominal damages, a zero verdict is inadequate as a matter of law. See Waldron v. Dorsey, 585 So. 2d 403, 404 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Christopher v. Bonifay, 577 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). An award that is inadequate as a matter of law may be ameliorated by additur under section 768.74. See Mason v. District Bd. of Trustees of Broward Community Colle…
  • Lorie Peterson and Clayton Peterson v. SUN State Int'l Trucks, LLC, 56 So. 3d 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
    …k surgical treatment. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that Mr. Peterson presented substantial, undisputed evidence sufficient to require an award of at least nominal damages for his loss of consortium claim. See Waldron v. Dorsey, 585 So. 2d 403, 404 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (reversing for a new trial on loss of consortium claims even though some of the evidence was conflicting where there was also substantial, undisputed evidence showing that at least nominal damages should have been awarded);…
  • Ballagas v. Scott, 589 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
    …such as Frye v. Suttles, 568 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), establish that at least nominal damages should be awarded when there is unrebutted evidence of a substantial, adverse impact on the marital relationship. See also, e.g., Waldron v. Dorsey, 585 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Fleming v. Albertson’s, Inc., 535 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), rev. denied, 542 So. 2d 1333 (Fla.1989). Such damages are not necessarily required if the marital deterioration may be attributable to other causes. See Tieche v.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw