FARAH KENT, APPELLANT,
v.
BERNARD J. BUCHOLC, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Future Economic Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellee plaintiff suffered a low back injury as a result of an automobile accident, and his experts testified that he had a permanent injury and would incur medical expenses in the future. The jury awarded appellee $13,-000 in past medical expenses and $50,000 in future medical expenses, but found that he did not sustain a permanent injury. Appellant defendant argues that because there was no finding of permanency, the award of future medical is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and that the trial court should have granted a new trial. We find no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion for new trial. See Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Tompkins, 651 So. 2d 89 (Fla.l995)(a finding of permanent injury is not a prerequisite for an award of future economic damages). We find the other issues raised by appellant are without merit. Affirmed.
WARNER, KLEIN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Royal Mende Basel & Steven Kane as Co-Plenary Guardians of the person & Prop. of Mark Victor Basel v. McFARLAND & Sons, Inc., 815 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…rinciple that a jury is not required to accept even uncontroverted opinion evidence from an expert. See Department of Transportation v. Duplissey, 751 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). The cases relied upon by Basel for reversal, Silverman v. Gockman, 714 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) and Davis v. Caterpillar, Inc., 787 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), do not discuss the nature of the testimony of damages in finding a clear abuse of discretion on the additur issue. In fact, in Davis the trial court granted addit…
-
Owen v. Morrisey, 793 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…oposition that all future economic damages, even those damages that are intended to compensate a claimant for the rest of his or her life, are recoverable without a finding that the claimant sustained a permanent injury. He cites to Kent v. Bucholc, 714 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), Hamilton v. Melbourne Sand Transport, Inc., 687 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), and Metrolimo, Inc. v. Lamm, 666 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). A close examination of these decisions does not support this proposition. In Kent, t…
-
Current Builders OF Fla., Inc. v. First Sealord Sur., Inc., 984 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…ed in a logical manner by reasonable persons. Accordingly, “[i]f the court finds that the amount awarded is ... inadequate, it shall order ... additur, as the case may be.” § 768.74(2), Fla. Stat. We applied these criteria in Silverman v. Gockman, 714 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), and found that a jury award of $250,000 in a medical malpractice claim where the evidence proved $520,975.65 in damages was inadequate, pointing out that the trial court had overlooked section 768.74(5)(d), which provides that t…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Tompkins, 651 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 1995)