RICHARD SIMPSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A PARTNER, AND N. D. SIMPSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A PARTNER, D/B/A SIMPSON MOTORS, A CO-PARTNERSHIP, AND ALBERT SMITH, APPELLANTS,
v.
DONALD R. CLAY, A MINOR, BY R. M. CLAY, HIS NEXT FRIEND, AND R. M. CLAY, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLEES
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 appeal, defendants challenge a trial court's order granting a new trial to a 17-year-old plaintiff who received a $6,000 jury verdict for severe foot injuries from a motor vehicle collision. The appellate court affirmed the new trial order, finding the original verdict grossly inadequate and the judge's discretion to grant a new trial was not abused.
The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in granting the new trial. The $6,000 award was grossly inadequate given the severity of the plaintiff's injuries, permanent disabilities, medical expenses, and reduced earning capacity over a 43-year life expectancy.
“In these circumstances we find nothing which requires us to conclude that the trial judge clearly abused his discretion when he granted the motion for a new trial on grounds that the damages awarded were grossly inadequate and that the judicial conscience was accordingly shocked.”
Establishes that the trial court properly exercised discretion in finding the verdict grossly inadequate
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDonald R. Clay, age 17, was driving a truck that collided with an automobile owned by Simpson Motors and driven by employee Albert Smith. The collisio…
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 Life Expectancy cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendants have appealed an order which granted co-plaintiff Donald R. Clay, a minor, a new trial on the ground that the verdict was grossly inadequate and shocking to the judicial conscience. The case was tried before a jury on the issues of negligence and contributory negligence and resulted in a $6,000.00 award to the said minor plaintiff and $951.18 to his father. The new trial was granted as to the minor plaintiff, and this is assigned as error.
The minor plaintiff was injured in a collision between the truck he was driving and an automobile owned by defendant Simpson Motors driven by an employee, co-defendant Albert Smith. Young Clay was seventeen years of age at the time of the collision which crushed his left foot and left him with other injuries. The evidence indicated that he had severe pains in his back and foot for several months. He was hospitalized for twenty-eight days, during which time *495surgical pins were placed in his foot. After three weeks, due to inadequacy of the blood supply in his foot, his big toe and a section of bone were removed. This left him with a marked limp and a consequent painful back condition. There was medical testimony that the injuries would affect his ability to engage in manual or labor-type work. He had been working in the upholstery business for his father when not actually in school. The mortality table indicated a life expectancy of approximately forty-three years.
The plaintiff was confined to bed at home for three weeks after his discharge from the hospital. He later used a wheel chair for three months and was on crutches for a month and a half. At the time of the trial he was using a cane “every once in awhile” when his pains returned. He could do no work requiring stooping or bending.
In these circumstances we find nothing which requires us to conclude that the trial judge clearly abused his discretion when he granted the motion for a new trial on grounds that the damages awarded were grossly inadequate and that the judicial conscience was accordingly shocked. See Kraus v. Osteen, Fla.App.1962, 135 So.2d 885.
A stronger showing is required to upset an order granting than an order denying a motion for a new trial. See Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 669, 673. In Utley v. Southern Metal Products Co., Fla.App.1959, 116 So.2d 28, this court held that an award of $5,000.00 for a housewife with a life expectancy of 17.78 years who had suffered head, arm, hip and knee injuries, resulting in permanent disabilities, was inadequate. See 9 Fla.Jur., Damages, § 100.
Affirmed.
ALLEN, Acting C. J., and KANNER and WHITE, JJ. concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Gen. Hosp. OF Greater Miami, Inc. v. Gager, 160 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…on of correctness. Nor do we forget the rule that appellate courts are much more reluctant to interfere with an •order granting a new trial than an order denying a new trial. Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So. 2d 669; Simpson v. Clay, Fla.App. 1962, 139 So. 2d 494. The circuit judge granted the new trial because he conceived that his predecessor had committed error by giving an instruction upon contributory negligence. He found nothing wrong with the instruction but held that it was upon an issue which did n…
-
State v. Strickland, 172 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)…witnesses, the jury and respective counsel, was best positioned to rule on the motion — and it is axiomatic that a stronger showing is required to upset an order granting a new trial than an order denying a new trial. Simpson v. Clay, Fla.App.1962, 139 So. 2d 494; Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So. 2d 669. Affirmed. WHITE, Acting C. J., ANDREWS, J., and RAWLS, JOHN S., Associate Judge, concur.…
-
PIX Shoes OF Miami, Inc. v. Howarth, 201 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…s of law it takes a stronger showing of error in order to reverse an order granting a new trial than one denying same. See: Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So. 2d 669; Archibald v. Wittmer, Fla.App.1960, 120 So. 2d 236; Simpson v. Clay, Fla.App.1962, 139 So. 2d 494. Plus, in the case at bar, the evidence before the trial court was not as strong as the evidence before the judge in the case of Malone v. Marks Brothers Paving Co., supra. Here, the so-called affidavits are really nothing more than statements secur…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1959)
- Utley v. S. Metal Prods. Co., Inc., 116 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Kraus v. Osteen, 135 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)