ANA AND ERMES AGUILERA, APPELLANTS,
v.
EQUITY ONE, LLC, 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.
Ana Aguilera, a nurse's aide injured in a fall on defendant's premises, and her husband appealed from a judgment in their favor that found them 90% comparatively negligent and awarded zero damages for future earnings and loss of consortium. The court reversed the zero verdicts on those two elements, finding undisputed evidence required at least nominal damages, but affirmed the judgment as to other issues.
The court held that zero verdicts for loss of future earnings and loss of consortium were inadequate as a matter of law because undisputed evidence established that at least nominal damages should have been awarded for these elements. However, the zero verdict for future medical expenses was upheld because conflicting evidence existed on that issue and reasonable persons could find no damages were sustained.
[1] A jury verdict awarding zero damages for loss of future earnings is inadequate as a matter of law when the evidence uncontradictedly shows that at least some damages were…
[2] A jury verdict awarding zero damages for loss of consortium is inadequate as a matter of law when undisputed evidence requires an award of at least nominal damages.
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“[I]t is ... well settled that where sufficient undisputed evidence is presented on a consortium claim that would require an award of at least nominal damages, a zero verdict is inadequate as a matter of law.”
Establishes the legal standard that undisputed evidence of injury mandates at least nominal damages for loss of consortium claims.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMrs. Aguilera, a nurse's aide, was injured in a fall-down accident on Equity One's premises and suffered severe injuries to her right shoulder and arm…
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 Future Earnings cases and more on FLexlaw
Mrs. Aguilera, a nurse’s aide who was injured in a fall-down accident on appellee-defendant’s premises, and her husband appeal from a judgment in their favor, pursuant to a jury verdict containing awards for several elements of damage, but which found her 90% and defendant 10% liable. Of the several issues presented, we find error only in the trial court’s failure to grant a new trial on the issues of her loss of future earnings and her husband’s alleged loss of consortium after the jury returned a verdict as to those items for zero damages. As to these elements, the evidence is uncontradicted that at least some damages were sustained as a result of the severe injuries sustained to the wife’s right shoulder and arm. See Peterson v. Sun State Int’l Trucks, LLC, 56 So.3d 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (where husband of plaintiff presented substantial, undisputed evidence sufficient to require an award of at least nominal damages, a zero verdict for loss of consortium claim was inadequate); Big Lots Stores, Inc. v. de Diaz, 18 So.3d 1065, 1068 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (finding that undisputed evidence presented on plaintiffs loss of consortium claim was sufficient to “require an award of at least nominal damages”); Tavakoly v. Fiddlers Green Ranch of Fla., Inc., 998 So.2d 1183, 1185 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (“[I]t is ... well settled that where sufficient undisputed evidence is presented on a consortium claim that would require an award of at least nominal damages, a zero verdict is inadequate as a matter of law.”); Watson v. Builders Square, Inc., 563 So.2d 721, 722 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (where appellants proved that Mrs. Watson suffered a permanent injury which affected her ability to work, a zero verdict for loss of future earning capacity was inadequate).
We reject, however, the same contention as to the zero award for future medical expenses. See Smith v. Fla. Healthy Kids Corp., 27 So.3d 692, 694 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“It is not necessary to grant a new trial in all cases where the jury returns a zero verdict. In fact, where conflicting *1175evidence exists concerning damages and reasonable men could believe that the plaintiff sustained no damage, a zero verdict will be upheld.”) (quoting Surety Mortg., Inc. v. Equitable Mortg. Res., Inc., 534 So.2d 780, 781 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)); Truelove v. Blount, 954 So.2d 1284 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).
Accordingly, the judgment below is for the most part affirmed and the cause remanded for a new trial as to the issues of the wife’s loss of future earnings and the husband’s loss of consortium, as to which the jury awards will be reduced by 90% comparative negligence.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Watson v. Builders Square, Inc., 563 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- D'Andre Combs v. State, 954 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Sur. Mortg., Inc. v. Equitable Mortg. Res., Inc., 534 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Duan Clayton Smith v. Fla. Healthy Kids Corp. & Clarendon Nat'l Ins. Co., 27 So. 3d 692 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- BIG Lots Stores, Inc. v. de Diaz, 18 So. 3d 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Ahmed Tavakoly and Beverlyn Tavakoly v. Fiddlers Green Ranch OF Fla., Inc., 998 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)
- Lorie Peterson and Clayton Peterson v. SUN State Int'l Trucks, LLC, 56 So. 3d 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)