MARION COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, APPELLANT,
v.
MARIANNE BEAUREGARD AS PERSONAL, ETC., 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.
The Fifth District affirmed a jury verdict in an automobile accident case, reversing only the award of future economic damages and remanding for recalculation to $15,900, while rejecting the sheriff's arguments regarding excessive non-economic damages and trial counsel misconduct.
The trial court properly denied the sheriff's motion for remittitur or new trial except as to future economic damages, which must be remanded for recalculation to $15,900 based on evidence actually presented.
[1] An award of future economic damages must be supported by evidence actually presented at trial; unsupported awards are subject to remand for recalculation.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRonald Avallone and his wife Marianne Beauregard recovered a jury verdict against Sheriff H. Edward Dean in an automobile accident case. The jury awar…
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 Future Economic Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
In this automobile accident case, H. Edward Dean, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Marion County [“Sheriff’], appeals the trial court’s entry of final judgment in favor of Ronald Avallone [“Avallone”] and his wife, Marianne Beauregard [“Beauregard”] [collectively “Appellees”]. Sheriff argues that the trial court erred by denying both his motion for remittitur or new trial and his subsequent motion for new trial. With respect to the motion for re-mittitur or new trial, Sheriff contends that the jury awards for future economic damages as well as past and future non-eeo-nomic damages are excessive and not supported by the evidence presented at trial. Additionally, with respect to the motion for new trial, Sheriff contends that Appellees’ trial counsel made prejudicial and inflammatory statements during opening and closing and that Avallone was improperly *284coached during his cross-examination. Appellees concede on appeal that the award of future economic damages was not supported by evidence actually submitted at trial, and the parties agree that we should remand this issue to the trial court for entry of an amended judgment awarding future economic damages in the amount of $15,900. As for the remaining elements of damages, we have made a detailed examination of the evidence and testimony concerning Mr. Avallone’s post-accident medical history, status and care, find no error, and affirm. We also affirm on the remaining issues without comment.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.
MONACO, C.J., and TORPY, J., concur.