PENSACOLA SANITARIUM, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
JOSEPH D. WILKINS, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
Pensacola Sanitarium appealed a judgment of $1,000 (reduced by remittitur from $1,500) in a negligence case brought by a patient injured by a hot water bottle left in his bed at the sanitarium. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, finding no error in the trial court's evidentiary rulings and holding that the damage award was not patently excessive.
The court affirmed the $1,000 judgment, finding: (1) no error in excluding evidence about nurse competency or sanitarium's care in selecting nurses since the negligence was actual negligence by an employee; (2) no error in excluding settlement-related questions; (3) no error in permitting plaintiff's testimony about burn measurement; and (4) the damage award was not patently excessive given the complete evidence of injury and the trial court's considered reduction.
“As the damages were claimed for actual negligence of a nurse, who was an employee of the private corporation for profit, there was no error in excluding evidence as to the competency of the nurse, or in refusing a charge as to the care used in selecting nurses at the sanitarium.”
Establishes that evidence regarding nurse competency and hiring practices was properly excluded in an actual negligence case
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA patient at Pensacola Sanitarium suffered a burn on his leg caused by a hot water bottle negligently left in his bed by a nurse employed by the sanit…
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 Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
A former judgment herein awarding $1,250.00 damages for a burn on the plaintiff’s leg caused by leaving a hot water bottle in the bed where he was a patient in the sanitarium, was reversed because of the admission of mortuary table followed by an apparently excessive verdict for an injury not shown to be permanent in its nature. Pensacola Sánitarium v. Wilkins, 64 Fla. 407, 60 South. Rep. 128.
At a subsequent trial a verdict for $1,500.00 was rendered. As an alternative for a new trial awarded the amount of . the verdict was reduced by remittitur to $1,000.00 and the defendant took writ of error. As the damages were claimed for actual negligence of a nurse, who was-an employee of the private corporation for profit, there was no error in excluding evidence as to the competency of the nurse, or in refusing, a charge as to the care used in selecting nurses at the sanitarium. It was not error to exclude a question relative to the extent of the plaintiff’s injury when it was coupled with matter relating to a settlement of the claim for damages which latter was not material to the issues being tried.
There was no error in permitting the plaintiff to testify as to how the burn was measured, the plaintiff’s burned limb being at the time exhibited to the jury.
As the evidence of the nature and extent of the injury sustained is more complete, as shown by this record, and as the trial court has expressly considered the amount of the award in this second verdict, by permitting a remit-, titur in accordance with his judgment as to the proper amount to be recovered, the appellate court will not disturb the trial court’s determination, the amount awarded in the judgment not being patently excessive.
Judgment affirmed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Cockrell and Hocker, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
de la Vallina v. de la Vallena, 90 Fla. 905 (Fla. 1926)…im, and that his award was patently excessive. Careful examination of the record does not disclose such abuse of discretion, or that the suggested remittitur was patently excessive, so the judgment below is affirmed. Pensacola Sanitarium v. Wilkins, 68 Fla. 447, 67 South. Rep. 124. Affirmed. Whitfield, P. J., and Buford, J., concur. Brown, C. J., and Ellis and Strum, J. J., concur in the opinion.…
-
S. Fla. Farms Co. v. Stevenson, 84 Fla. 235 (Fla. 1922)…n satisfactorily determine from the record the amount of the excess or the amount properly recoverable whether in tort or contract, the court may authorize a remittitur of the excess as an alternative for a reversal. Pensacola Sanitarium v. Wilkins, 68 Fla. 447, 67 South. Rep. 124; Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Scott, 76 Fla. 336, 79 South. Rep. 767; McLean v. Spratt, 20 Fla. 515; Gunning v. Heron, 25 Fla. 846, 6 South. Rep. 855; Savannah, F. & W. Ry. Co. v. Davis, 25 Fla. 917, 7 South. Rep. 29; Florida Ry…
-
Parrish v. Clark, 107 Fla. 598 (Fla. 1933)…mages for personal injuries claimed solely for alleged actual negligence, the competency of the negligent employee who caused the injury is immaterial to the right to recover [*603] or to the defense of the hospital. Pensacola Sanitarium v. Wilkins, 68 Fla. 447, 67 Sou. Rep. 124. In such cases the owner and operator of the hospital is liable for the positive negligent infliction of injury on the patient by an employee nurse, regardless of whether or not it used due care in the selection of only competent…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pensacola Sanitarium v. Wilkins, 64 Fla. 407 (Fla. 1912)