KINGS GOURMET MARKET, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
VALERIE HERTZ-KUSZ, 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.
This case involves an appeal by Kings Gourmet Market after a trial court granted an additur to a plaintiff's damages in a slip-and-fall case. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in awarding future non-economic damages.
No, the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion in granting an additur for future non-economic damages. The appellate court found no merit in the remaining points on appeal.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in granting an additur for future non-economic damages when there is ample evidence supporting such an award.
[2] An appellate court reviews a trial court's order granting an additur for a clear abuse of discretion.
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“We affirm, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion in granting an additur for future non-economic damages.”
States the appellate court's conclusion regarding the trial court's decision on additur.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, an active and athletic woman, suffered a fall in the grocery store, leading to knee replacement surgery and multiple subsequent treatme…
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 Loss Of Capacity For Enjoyment Of Life cases and more on FLexlaw
TAYLOR, J.
Kings Gourmet Market (Kings) appeals the trial court’s order granting an additur to the plaintiffs damages in this slip-and-fall case. We affirm, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion in granting an additur for future non-economic damages.
Before plaintiff was injured from her fall in the grocery store and underwent knee replacement surgery, she was a very active, athletic woman, who regularly jogged in the mornings and bicycled in the afternoons. Since the accident and numerous surgeries and treatments, she can no longer engage in these physical activities and now uses a cane to walk. As the trial court found, ample evidence was presented to support an award for plaintiffs loss of capacity for enjoyment of life. See Republic Services of Florida, L.P. v. Poucher, 851 So. 2d 866, 870 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (stating that a trial court’s order granting an additur is reviewed for a clear abuse of discretion); Aurbach v. Gallina, 721 So. 2d 756, 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (stating that a trial court’s determination regarding ad-ditur may be reversed on appeal only where there is a clear abuse of discretion); see also Brown v. Estate of Stuckey, 749 So. 2d 490, 498 (Fla.1999) (stating that in reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion for new trial based on the verdict being inadequate or excessive, the appellate court must “recognize the broad discretionary authority of the trial judge and apply the reasonableness test to determine whether the trial court committed an abuse of discretion. If an appellate court determines that reasonable persons could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, there can be no finding of an abuse of discretion. The fact that there may be substantial, competent evidence in the record to support the jury verdict does not necessarily demonstrate that the trial judge abused his or her discretion.”).
We find no merit in the remaining points on appeal and affirm the judgment of the trial court in all respects.
Affirmed.
STEVENSON, C.J., and WARNER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Laurentina Kocik v. Eddy Pablo Rodriguez (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)…ere may be substantial, competent evidence in the record to support the jury verdict does not necessarily demonstrate that the trial [court] abused [its] 6 discretion [in granting an additur motion].” Kings Gourmet Mkt., Inc. v. Hertz-Kusz, 941 So. 2d 1195, 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (citation omitted). However, in considering an additur motion, a trial court may not act as a seventh juror by “substituting [its] resolution of the factual issues for that of the jury.” Ortlieb, 849 So. 2d at 1167 (c…
-
Craftsman Plastering & Lath, Inc. v. Rath Mor, LLC (Fla. 4th DCA 2026)
Authorities Cited
- Rupert B. Brown v. The Est. OF A.P. Stuckey, Sr., 749 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1999)
- Aurbach v. Gallina, 721 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Republic Servs. OF Fla., L.P. v. Poucher, 851 So. 2d 866 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)