THOMAS N. SILVERMAN, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
GEORGE M. GOCKMAN, JR., APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT

Fla. 4th DCA | 1998-08-05
No. 97-2452
GUNTHER, POLEN and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
714 So. 2d 671 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1998)

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.


Holding

The trial court abused its discretion by denying additur when the jury's award was not supported by competent substantial evidence. A new trial on damages is warranted if additur is not accepted.


Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff sued defendant for legal malpractice. The jury awarded $250,000 in damages, but the plaintiff cross-appealed, arguing the award was insuffic…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from judgment in a legal malpractice suit, and plaintiff cross-appeals from the same judgment. We find no merit in the points raised by appellant, but agree with cross-appellant that the trial court abused its discretion in denying additur. There was no competent substantial evidence that the damages sustained by cross-appellant amounted to only the $250,000 as awarded by the jury. Rather, the only competent substantial evidence was that the damages sustained by cross-appellant were $520,975.65. We think the trial court overlooked some of the criteria which, according to section 768.74(5), Florida Statutes (1995), the court shall consider in determining whether additur should be granted. We point out in particular the criterion stated at section 768.74(5)(d): ‘Whether the amount awarded bears a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered ...”

Affirmed in part and reversed in part. The trial court is directed to grant additur consistent with the above, and, if appellant does not agree to the additur, a new trial on damages only. § 768.74(4), Fla. Stat. (1995).

GUNTHER, POLEN and KLEIN, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw