WILLIAM R. FITZMAURICE AND MARILYN FITZMAURICE, APPELLANTS/CROSS APPELLEES,
v.
PRESTON H. SMITH, APPELLEE/CROSS APPELLANT
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.
Florida appellate court affirmed directed verdict on comparative negligence defense and exclusion of workers compensation evidence, but reversed and remanded for new trial on damages because trial court improperly granted additur without a motion from the prevailing party.
A trial court may not grant an additur without a proper motion from the party seeking such relief, even sua sponte.
[1] A trial court may not grant an additur without a proper motion from the party seeking relief, even when acting sua sponte to correct an allegedly inadequate damage award.
Previewing 1 of 1 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“upon proper motion, to review the amount of such award to determine if such amount is excessive or inadequate... and to... order a remittitur or additur as the case may be.”
Court's interpretation of section 768.74, Florida Statutes, emphasizing the requirement of a proper motion before additur may be granted.
Appellants Fitzmaurice sued appellee Smith for damages. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Smith on appellants' affirmative defense of comparativ…
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 Fla. Stat. § 768.74 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We find no error in the trial court’s entry of a directed verdict in favor of appellee on appellants’ affirmative defense of comparative negligence. We also find no error in the trial court’s exclusion of Exhibit 6, a redacted version of a workers compensation claim report. Therefore, we affirm as to appellants’ points on appeal. We reverse, however, and remand this case for a new trial on all issues of damages. The trial court apparently concluded that the jury failed to award appellee adequate damages. Thereupon, it sua sponte ordered an additur in the amount of $6,500, or in the alternative, a new trial on damages. Section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1987), permits a trial court “... upon proper motion, to review the amount of such award to determine if such amount is excessive or inadequate_” and to “... order a remittitur or additur as the case may be.” (emphasis added). We hold that the trial court erred when it granted an additur in the absence of a motion by appel-lee for such relief.
Accordingly, we affirm the verdict and judgment on liability in favor of appellee and reverse and remand this case for a new trial on damages.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED.
LETTS; DELL and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Aurbach v. Gallina, 721 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…additur will be coupled with a motion for new trial. See Trawick, Fla.Prac. and Proc. § 26-1 (1993 ed.). However, the only pleading requirement in section 768.74 is that a “proper motion” be made for remittitur and additur. See Fitzmaurice v. Smith, 593 So. 2d 1197, 1198 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). The statute does not mandate the concomitant filing of a motion for new trial. Especially for a limited issue such as loss of consortium, a party may choose not to seek the expensive, extensive relief of a new trial, prefe…