JENNA ALYSSA MORALES
v.
MAX ADOLFO PIRELA
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.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial when the jury's verdict suggests a compromise on liability or confusion regarding damages law.
[1] A trial court's decision to grant a new trial based on a jury verdict that indicates a compromise on liability or confusion regarding damages law is reviewed under an abu…
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 intelligence“the questions from the jury and the verdict convey a strong indication of compromise on the issue of liability when it awarded [plaintiff] her medical expenses without considering non-economic damages”
Food Lion v. Jackson, cited for the principle that jury verdicts showing this pattern warrant new trials
Jenna Alyssa Morales brought a personal injury action against Max Adolfo Pirela. The jury returned a verdict finding defendant negligent but awarded o…
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 New Trial Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed October 15, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D24-0596 Lower Tribunal No. 19-22326-CA-01
Jenna Alyssa Morales, Appellant, vs. Max Adolfo Pirela, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Beatrice Butchko Sanchez, Judge.
Falk, Waas, Solomon, Mendlestein & Davis, P.A., Scott L. Mendlestein, Chuka Obianagu, and Jessica M. Hernandez, for appellant.
Eaton & Wolk, PL, and Douglas F. Eaton, for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See § 768.74(5), Fla. Stat. (2019); Arena Parking, Inc. v. Lon
Worth Crow Ins. Agency, 768 So. 2d 1107, 1110 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
(appellate court reviews a trial court’s determination to grant a motion for additur under an abuse of discretion standard); Food Lion v. Jackson, 712 So. 2d 800, 803 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (affirming the trial court granting plaintiff a new trial and stating that “the questions from the jury and the verdict convey a strong indication of compromise on the issue of liability when it awarded [plaintiff] her medical expenses without considering non-economic damages”); FLNC, Inc. v. Ramos, 220 So. 3d, 1220, 1222-23 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (finding, after plaintiff sought additur, a new trial was warranted on all issues after jury sent out two written damage-related questions to the trial court; jury returned a verdict finding defendant negligently caused injury to plaintiff; jury awarded past medical expenses but nothing for pain and suffering; finding it was likely the jury “interwove the issues of liability and damages on the jury form in an inconsistent way, suggestive of a compromise on liability, possible confusion on the law of damages, or both”).
2