LILA SPARKS-BOOK AND EDWARD A. BOOK, JR., HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE SPORTS AUTHORITY, 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.
Lila Sparks-Book sued The Sports Authority after a camping stove fell on her head in the store. Although the defendant admitted liability, a jury verdict found the defendant's negligence was not the legal cause of the plaintiff's injuries. The appellate court reversed, holding that the plaintiff was entitled to recover at minimum for necessary diagnostic medical expenses and remanded for a new trial on damages.
The plaintiff was entitled to recover at minimum for medical expenses incurred for any diagnostic testing reasonably necessary to determine whether the accident caused her injuries, and the case must be remanded for a new trial on the question of damages.
[1] A plaintiff is entitled to recover the cost of diagnostic testing reasonably necessary to determine if an accident caused their injuries, even if actual bodily injury is…
[2] A jury's finding that a defendant's negligence was not the legal cause of any loss, injury, or damage to a plaintiff will result in a judgment for the defendant, notwiths…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“At a minimum, the plaintiff was entitled to recover for those medical expenses incurred for any diagnostic testing which was reasonably necessary to determine whether the accident caused her injuries.”
Establishes the minimum recovery available even when causation of ultimate injuries is disputed, supporting reversal of the judgment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn August 23, 1992, Lila Sparks-Book was shopping at The Sports Authority when an employee accidentally knocked a camping stove off a shelf, striking …
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 Legal Causation cases and more on FLexlaw
NESBITT, Judge.
Plaintiffs-appellants appeal an adverse final judgment and the lower court’s denial of their motion for a new trial. We reverse.
Lila Sparks-Book was shopping with her husband at The Sports Authority on August 23, 1992. There, a camping stove was accidentally knocked off a shelf by an employee and it landed on Sparks-Book’s head. She filed suit, along with her husband who filed a loss of consortium claim. The Sports Authority admitted liability but contested damages.
The main issue at trial was the extent to which Sparks-Book’s physical ailments were attributable to the accident at The Sports Authority. At the end of the trial, the jury answered “No” to the question: “Was the negligence on the part of Defendant, The Sports Authority, Inc. the legal cause of any loss, injury or damage to Plaintiff Lila Sparks-Book?” That finding ended the case, and the trial court entered final judgment in The Sports Authority’s favor. The trial court later denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial which contended, in short, that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
At a minimum, the plaintiff was entitled to recover for those medical expenses incurred for any diagnostic testing which was reasonably necessary to determine whether the accident caused her injuries. See Blanford v. Polk County, 410 So. 2d 667, 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); see also Noralyn O. Harlow, Annotation, Recoverability from tortfeasor of cost of diagnostic examinations absent proof of actual bodily injury, 46 A.L.R.4th 1151 (1986). It is undisputed that paramedics were called to the scene of the accident and that Sparks-Book was transported to an emergency room. There, x-rays were taken of Sparks-Book’s jaw, shoulder, and neck.
Consequently, we reverse and remand for a new trial on the question of the plaintiffs’ damages.1
. With respect to the plaintiffs' contention that the first question on the verdict form was inconsistent with the defendant’s admission of liability, we refer the parties to Rucker v. Garlock, Inc., 672 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). There, in a trial solely on damages we held: ‘‘[E]ven with causation not at issue, plaintiff was still obligated to prove some connexity between the damages claimed and the [defendant’s tortious conduct].” Id. at 102.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hernandez v. Gonzalez, 124 So. 3d 988 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…al on whether the appellants’ claimed injuries were caused by the accident. Although the appellees admitted negligence, causation was a disputed issue on which both plaintiffs bore the burden of proof at trial. See Sparks-Book v. Sports Auth., Inc., 699 So. 2d 767, 768 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (“ ‘[E]ven with causation not at issue, plaintiff was still obligated to prove some connexity between the damages claimed and the [defendant’s tortious conduct].’” (quoting Rucker v. Garlock, Inc., 672 So. 2d 100, 102 (F…
-
State v. Errol Rosario, 782 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…t of the evidence. Rosario argues that at a minimum he is entitled to an award to reimburse his expenses for diagnostic testing and treatment for the aggravation of his preexisting back condition. He relies on Sparks-Book v. Sports Authority, Inc., 699 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), for the proposition that he was entitled to the cost of diagnostic testing to determine whether the accident caused his injuries notwithstanding the jury’s finding of no causation. These arguments do not support Rosario’s positi…
-
Meyers v. Bonneva Shontz, 251 So. 3d 992 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Blanford v. Polk Cnty., 410 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Rucker v. Garlock, Inc., 672 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)