AUTO BUILDERS SOUTH FLORIDA, INC., ETC., PETITIONER,
v.
DANIEL M. BUCCI, RESPONDENT
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.
The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a Fourth District Court of Appeal decision that reversed a trial court judgment in a personal injury case involving negligence at a construction site. The Court answered certified questions regarding whether a jury verdict awarding future medical expenses but no intangible damages is inadequate as a matter of law, ultimately quashing the district court's reversal and reinstating the trial judgment.
The Court answered the first certified question in the negative, holding that a verdict awarding future medical expenses but no intangible damages is not inadequate as a matter of law. This answer rendered the second question moot regarding the requirement of pre-discharge objection.
[1] A jury verdict awarding future medical expenses but no damages for future intangible losses, such as pain and suffering, is not inadequate as a matter of law when the pla…
[2] A plaintiff is not required to object to a jury verdict before its discharge to preserve the issue of verdict inadequacy for appeal when the verdict awards future medical…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“Where a jury finds that a plaintiff has sustained a permanent injury and awards future medical expenses, but awards no future intangible damages, is the verdict inadequate as a matter of law?”
The first certified question of great public importance that the Court addressed and answered in the negative.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDaniel Bucci was permanently injured when he fell while walking across an unenclosed, unposted, and unlighted construction site at an auto dealership …
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 Inadequate Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
SHAW, Justice.
We have for review Bucci v. Auto Builders South Florida, Inc., 690 So. 2d 1387 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), wherein the district court certified two questions of great public importance. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Daniel Bucci was permanently injured when he fell while walking across the construction site of an auto dealership in Bro-ward County after his vehicle became disabled late one night. The construction site was not fenced, posted with warning signs, or lighted. The jury found Auto Builders South Florida, Inc., the general contractors retained by the auto dealership, 20% negligent and Bucci 80% negligent and awarded Bucci $20,000 in past medical expenses and $80,000 in future medical expenses. Bucci did not object to the verdict before the jury was discharged, but filed a motion for new trial, arguing that the verdict was inadequate as a matter of law because the jury awarded medical expenses yet failed to award either past or future lost wages or pain and suffering. The trial court denied Bucci’s motion and entered a final judgment in the amount of $20,000.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial on liability and damages, certifying the same two questions certified in Allstate Insurance Co. v. Manasse, 681 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996):
Where a jury finds that a plaintiff has sustained a permanent injury and awards future medical expenses, but awards no future intangible damages, is the verdict inadequate as a matter of law?
If such a verdict requires a new trial, must the plaintiff have objected before the discharge of the jury?
Id. at 784. We have since addressed these questions in Allstate Ins. Co. v. Manasse, 707 So. 2d 1110 (Fla.1998), wherein we answered the first question in the negative which rendered the second question moot. In accordance with our decision in Manasse, we quash the decision of the district court and remand this case to the district court with directions to reinstate the judgment of the trial court.
It is so ordered.
KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, HARDING and WELLS, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, J., dissents.
PARIENTE, J., recused.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
FLNC, Inc. v. Joise Ramos, 220 So. 3d 1220 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…cal expenses only and nothing for pain and suffering clearly shows it was result of compromised verdict where negligence was seriously disputed); Bucci v. Auto Builders S. Fla., Inc., 690 So. 2d 1387, 1389 (Fla 4th DCA 1997), rev’d on other grounds, 709 So. 2d 1381 (Fla. 1998) (holding that jury’s damages-related questions and verdict of liability with clearly inadequate damages of only medical expenses but no non-economic damages in case where liability was. hotly contested strongly suggested compromised verd…
Authorities Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Myrda Manasse, 707 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 1998)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Myrda Manasse, 681 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Bucci v. Auto Builders S. Fla., Inc., 690 So. 2d 1387 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)