JEAN MARLO, APPELLANT,
v.
K-MART CORPORATION, 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.
In this personal injury action, the trial court reduced a jury verdict from $363,205 to $160,000 through remittitur and awarded attorney's fees based on an offer of judgment. The appellate court reversed the remittitur, finding the jury verdict reasonable given evidence of significant non-economic damages, and reversed and remanded the attorney's fees award for proceedings with required findings of fact.
The jury verdict was not inordinately large and should not have been disturbed, as the evidence of future non-economic damages provided a logical and sufficient basis for the award. The attorney's fees award must be reversed and remanded for a new hearing with required findings of fact supporting the amount awarded.
[1] A jury verdict should not be disturbed by remittitur when it is not so inordinately large as to obviously exceed the maximum limit of a reasonable range within which the…
[2] Testimony regarding future non-economic damages, including disfigurement, loss of sensation, partial loss of smell, continued pain, breathing difficulties, discomfort, an…
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“the jury verdict should not have been disturbed as it was not so inordinately large as obviously to exceed the maximum limit of a reasonable range within which the jury may properly operate”
Establishes the legal standard for when a jury verdict may be reduced through remittitur
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJean Mario was injured when a stack of shelves fell on her while shopping at K-Mart. The jury awarded $363,205 in damages, comprising $23,205 in past …
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 Prejudice, Passion, Or Corruption cases and more on FLexlaw
FLETCHER, Judge.
The trial court in this personal injury action1 ordered a remittitur of the jury award of $363,205,2 reducing that award to $160,000, and, based on the offer of judgment, awarded Mario attorney’s fees. Mario challenges both the remittitur and the amount of attorney’s fees awarded.
First, we conclude that the jury verdict should not have been disturbed as it was not so inordinately large as obviously to exceed the maximum limit of a reasonable range within which the jury may properly operate. See Kaine v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 735 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 744 So. 2d 454 (Fla.1999). The testimony as to future non-economic damages (specifically evidence as to disfigurement, loss of ability to feel in the area of her injury, partial loss of sense of smell, continued pain, difficulty breathing, discomfort, and change in her speaking voice) was a logical and sufficient basis for the jury to have reached its conclusion.3 Accordingly, we reverse the order of remittitur and direct the trial court to reinstate the verdict.4
We also reverse the order awarding attorney’s fees and remand for a new hearing thereon. The trial court is directed to provide findings of fact in support of whatever amount it awards. See Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1985); Rohlfs v. Rohlfs, 666 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).
Reversed and remanded.
. A stack of shelves fell on the plaintiff Jean Mario while she was shopping in K-Mart.
. Past medical expenses and lost earnings = $23,205; present value of future medical expenses = $10,000; past pain and suffering, disfigurement, etc. = $50,000; future pain and suffering, disfigurement, etc. = $280,000.
. Our review of the record reveals no violation by the jury of the standards of section 768.74(5)(a-e), Florida Statutes (1997), which reads:
(5) In determining whether an award is excessive or inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances presented to the trier of fact and in determining the amount, if any, that such award exceeds a reasonable range of damages or is inadequate, the court shall consider the following criteria:
(a) Whether the amount awarded is indicative of prejudice, passion, or corruption on the part of the trier of fact;
(b) Whether it appears that the trier of fact ignored the evidence in reaching a verdict or misconceived the merits of the case relating to the amounts of damages recoverable;
(c) Whether the trier of fact took improper elements of damages into account or arrived at the amount of damages by speculation and conjecture;
(d) Whether the amount awarded bears a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered; and (e) Whether the amount awarded is supported by the evidence and is such that it could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons.
.We affirm K-Mart’s cross-appeal. See Strahan v. Gauldin, 756 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hendry v. Zelaya, 841 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…passion or prejudice.” 749 So. 2d at 498. There has been no suggestion of improper influence and the verdict, although generous, is not shocking. The award was based on the evidence presented and Zelaya’s life expectancy. See Mario v. K-Mart Corp., 756 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Klefeker v. Ellington, 304 [*576] So. 2d 545 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). There was evidence that Officer Zelaya suffered permanent brain damage resulting in memory loss, that his marriage has been affected by his injuries, and that he co…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)
- Strahan v. Gauldin, 756 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Rohlfs v. Rohlfs, 666 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Kaine v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 735 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)