RENEE HILL, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF SHARON BRONOWICZ, DECEASED, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
NEW HORIZONS OF THE TREASURE COAST, INC., APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 court affirmed the trial court's order granting the defendant's motion for a new trial, and affirmed other orders without discussion.
The plaintiff appealed an order granting the defendant's motion for a new trial. The defendant also cross-appealed orders denying its motion for direc…
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 Non-Economic Damages Cap cases and more on FLexlaw
On the plaintiffs appeal, we affirm the trial court’s order granting the defendant’s motion for new trial. See, e.g., Intramed, Inc. v. Guider, 93 So.3d 503, 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“The closing argument shifted the focus of the case from compensating the plaintiff to punishing the defendant.... The purpose of damages here was to compensate, not to make the defendant care, ‘take responsibility,’ or say it was sorry. Counsel’s arguments improperly suggested that the defendant should be punished for contesting damages at trial and that its defense of the claim in court was improper. The closing argument was designed to inflame the emotions of the jury rather than prompt a logical analysis of the evidence in light of the applicable law.”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
On the defendant’s cross-appeal, we affirm without discussion the trial court’s order denying the defendant’s motion for directed verdict. We also affirm without discussion the trial court’s orders admitting the evidence which became the subject of the defendant’s motion for directed verdict.
Because we affirm the trial court’s order granting the defendant’s motion for new trial, we do not review in this appeal the trial court’s orders granting the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment, denying the plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment, and granting the defendant’s motion for remittitur. All of those orders reflect the trial court’s determination that the non-economic damages cap contained in section 394.9085(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2010), applied to all three counts which the plaintiff pled in this case. As the parties properly conceded at oral argument, our review of that determination will not become ripe unless the plaintiff, at the new trial, obtains a jury verdict which exceeds the non-economic damages cap contained in section 394.9085(1)(b).
Affirmed in part and remanded for new trial.
GERBER, LEVINE and' KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Marvine Calloway, 201 So. 3d 753 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…hat can be drawn between those cases and plaintiffs counsel’s arguments in this case. This court has applied Intramed and found such comments to be sufficiently egregious to warrant a new trial. See Hill v. New Horizons of the Treasure Coast, Inc., 151 So. 3d 47, 48 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). Although plaintiff asserts that the punitive damages claim made these comments appropriate because the issue of entitlement to such damages was at issue in Phase II, so too was the claim for compensatory damages. Intramed, 9…
Authorities Cited
- Intramed, Inc. v. Guider, 93 So. 3d 503 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)