RITE RATE CAB COMPANY, INC., D/B/A SHOUPPE'S RENT-A-CAR SERVICE, AND JOSEPH FRANCIS REIDY, APPELLANTS,
v.
BERNARD A. MCGEE, 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.
Rite Rate Cab Company and Joseph Reidy appealed a jury verdict awarding Bernard McGee $22,500 in damages for injuries sustained in an automobile rear-end collision. The appellate court affirmed the verdict, finding it was not excessive and that the jury properly considered the plaintiff's permanent, disabling injuries and lifetime losses.
The jury verdict of $22,500 was not excessive and should be affirmed. A jury award will only be disturbed on appeal if it is clearly arbitrary or so excessive or inadequate as to shock the judicial conscience, and appellants failed to demonstrate prejudicial trial error or that the verdict was excessive based on the evidence presented.
“As a defendant should not be unjustly mulcted in damages, so a plaintiff should not be denied full compensation when justly entitled to recover and a jury award should be accorded due respect.”
Establishes the principle that jury verdicts deserve deference and plaintiffs are entitled to full compensation when justified by the evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcGee, a 54-year-old man with approximately 20 years life expectancy, was injured in a rear-end collision. He sustained a fracture of the fifth lumbar…
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 Jury Verdict Review cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendants appeal a judgment awarding plaintiff $22,500.00 damages for property damages and personal injuries arising out of an automobile rear-end collision. The plaintiff was a 54 year old man with a life expectancy of approximately 20 years. Liability was conceded and, although there are seven points specified on appeal, we find that essentially the only question presented is whether or not the verdict of the jury was excessive.
The evidence tends to show that the plaintiff sustained a fracture of the fifth lumbar vertebra and muscular tears and ligament strain in the region of the neck and shoulders causing him to hold his head in an abnormal position because of pain. There was competent testimony to the effect that plaintiff’s injuries were limiting, permanent and painful and that he gave up a good position with potential because he was unable to keep the pace; that he accepted a selling job with less potential in order to support his family; that his automobile was damaged; that he was required to wear a back brace for an extended period; that he incurred and will continue to incur large medical expenses and that he will undergo pain and suffering in the future. There was testimony that the only treatment for alleviation of plaintiff’s back condition would be an operation to fuse the spine “which would be dangerous and disabling and expensive, and might not be successful. * * *"
A Dr. Roger A. Carlyle testified objectively that from his X-ray examination “the man has an unhealed fracture which should be disabling and should become worse and worse as time goes on; his disability should become greater as time goes on.” There were some conflicts of medical testimony, but the conflicts were competently resolved below.
As a defendant should not be unjustly mulcted in damages, so a plaintiff should not be denied full compensation when justly entitled to recover and a jury award should be accorded due respect. Tampa Transit Lines v. Smith, Fla.App.1963, 155 So.2d 557. The amount of a verdict, unless clearly arbitrary or so excessive or inadequate as to shock the judicial conscience, will not be disturbed on appeal. It must be shown that the verdict was induced by prejudice or passion or that there was some misconception of the law or evidence or that the jury did not consider all the elements of damage involved, missed consideration of the issues or failed to discharge their duty as charged. See Schnedl v. Rich, Fla.App.1962, 137 So.2d 1; Radiant Oil Company v. Herring, 1941, 146 Fla. 154, 200 So. 376, 378.
We cannot say on the record before us that there was any prejudicial trial error or that the verdict was excessive. As previously indicated, we deem it unnecessary to discuss remaining points raised on appeal.
Affirmed.
KANNER, Acting C. J., WHITE, J., and PATTISHALL, W. A., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Talcott v. Holl, 224 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…er improper motive. Loftin v. Dagley, 152 Fla. 831, 13 So. 2d 311; Florida Motor Lines Corp. v. Shontz, 159 Fla. 518, 32 So. 2d 248.” See also, Radiant Oil Co. v. Herring, 146 Fla. 154, 200 So. 376, 378; Rite Rate Cab Company v. McGee, Fla.App.1964, 159 So. 2d 663, 664. The argument presented on this point by the appellants is that because of the size of this verdict it should be concluded its determination “was governed by sentimental or fanciful standards such as passion or sympathy,” and therefore that a…
-
Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. McKELVEY, 270 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 1972)…So. 2d 181 (Fla.1969) ; Compania Dominicana de Aviacion v. Knapp, 251 So. 2d 18 (Fla.App.3d, 1971), cert. den. 256 So. 2d 6 (Fla.1971); Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Stewart, 140 So. 2d 880 (Fla.App.3d, 1962); Rite Rate Cab Company v. McGee, 159 So. 2d 663 (Fla.App.2d, 1963). The safeguard of proper judicial review has been afforded in this case and the award passes review. Quite obviously some speculation enters into most personal injury actions, but the yardstick does not exist which can measure fu…
-
Smith v. Goodpasture, 179 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)…Bartholf v. Baker, supra. For cases which upheld verdicts as not being excessive see, Clark v. Rousseau, Fla.App.1961, 133 So. 2d 764; Tampa Transit Lines, Inc. v. Smith, Fla.App.1963, 155 So. 2d 557; Rite Rate Cab Co., Inc. v. McGee, Fla.App.1963, 159 So. 2d 663. For an annotation of cases involving the question of excessiveness of damages see 16 A.L.R.2d 3. We conclude that in view of the facts, the status of the plaintiff, the amount allowed as computable compensatory damages and in light of the philosop…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Radiant Oil Co. v. Herring, 146 Fla. 154 (Fla. 1941)
- Tampa Transit Lines, Inc. v. Smith, 155 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Schnedl v. Rich, 137 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)