CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AND BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, PETITIONERS,
v.
MARSHALL SMITH, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court reviewed a District Court of Appeal decision that reversed a jury verdict for inadequate damages in a personal injury sidewalk fall case. The Court held that a verdict matching medical expenses alone is not inherently unreasonable and does not demonstrate abuse of discretion by the trial judge, absent specific vitiating circumstances.
The Court held that the verdict is not per se inadequate merely because it equals medical expenses. Absent a showing of vitiating circumstances such as prejudice, passion, misconception of law or evidence, or failure to consider damage elements, an appellate court must assume the jury considered all elements of damage. The jury may reasonably have concluded there was no compensable pain and suffering despite the medical expenses incurred.
“In reviewing a jury verdict in a case wherein the trial court has denied a motion for new trial alleging inadequacy of damages, an appellate court is bound to remember that the test of inadequacy of a verdict is not what the reviewing court would have decided had it tried the case, but whether it can be said that the jurors as reasonable men could not have found the verdict they did.”
Establishes the standard of review for jury verdict adequacy—objective reasonableness rather than appellate substitution of judgment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondent Smith brought a negligence action for injuries from falling on a defective sidewalk. The jury returned a verdict for exactly $441.00, the p…
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 Adequacy Of Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner for writ of certiorari seeks to have this Court review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, in the case of Smith v. City of Miami et al.1
Respondent Smith, plaintiff below brought an action for injuries sustained when he fell on an allegedly defective portion of sidewalk. The trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiff for $441.00, the exact amount the medical expenses claimed. Plaintiff’s motion for new trial, on the ground that no allowance was made for pain and suffering and loss of earnings, was denied.
The District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial on the issue of damages holding that the verdict demonstrated a “complete disregard of the trial judge’s instruction on the law” and that the trial judge had abused his wide discretion in denying motion for new trial.
The case cited for conflict is Freeman v. Bandlow2 wherein on similar facts the District Court of Appeal, Second District, reached a contrary result. The District Court in the instant case stated that it would not attempt to distinguish the Freeman case and expressly declined to follow it.
In Shaw v. Puleo 3 we held:
“The question of adequacy or inadequacy of damages is governed by this court’s decision in Radiant Oil Co. v. Herring, 146 Fla. 154, 200 So. 376, wherein we said:
“ ‘.It has been held that under the old common law rule, a motion for new trial for inadequacy of damages should not be granted but the general rule now seems to be that a verdict for grossly inadequate damages stands on the same ground as a verdict for excessive or extravagant damages and that a new trial may as readily be granted in the one case *750as the other. Such verdicts will not be set aside for the mere reason that they are less than the Court thinks they should be. It must be shown that the verdict was induced by prejudice or passion, some misconception of the law or the evidence or it must be shown that the jury did not consider all the elements of damage involved, missed a consideration of the issues submitted or failed to discharge their duty as given them by the Court’s charge. 20 R.C.L. 283.’ * * *
“In reviewing a jury verdict in a case wherein the trial court has denied a motion for new trial alleging inadequacy of damages, an appellate court is bound to remember that the test of inadequacy of a verdict is not what the reviewing court would have decided had it tried the case, but whether it can be said that the jurors as reasonable men could not have found the verdict they did.”
When measured by the language just quoted the decision under review must be quashed. The District Court concluded it was not reasonable to assume that a verdict for the exact amount of the medical bills “included a consideration of the evidence of pain and suffering.” We disagree and express it as our view that, absent a showing of vitiating circumstance such as were enumerated in the Radiant Oil case, supra, we must assume that the jury considered all elements of damage. In the instant case the jurors may well have concluded that although there was in fact no compensable pain and suffering, the petitioner, nevertheless, had incurred medical expense and was to that extent entitled to recover.
In Freeman v. Bandlow,4 the jury awarded the exact amount of a doctor’s bill to plaintiff in a personal injury action and defendant appealed asserting inadequate damages. The District Court, Second District, found that, although contrary inferences of fact could have been drawn, the Court could not say with requisite assurance that the jury clearly labored under misconception of the law or evidence or failed to consider the extent of plaintiff’s actual injuries and the elements of damage involved.
The record here fails to demonstrate abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in denying the motion for new trial. The decision of the District Court of Appeal is quashed and the cause is remanded for disposition consistent herewith.
It is so ordered.
DREW, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, THORNAL, O’CONNELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (34 total)
-
Griffis v. Hill, 230 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 1969)…erdict at a figure in excess of proven medical expenses, presumably for any and all other damages accruing to the claimant, including pain and suffering and loss of earnings, we feel compelled to affirm Under the authority of City of Miami v. Smith, 165 So. 2d 748 (Fla.1964) and Shaw v. Puleo, 159 So. 2d 641 (Fla.1964).” The District Court in the foregoing opinion relied on the decisions of this Court in Puleo 2 and Smith 3 cases, but attributed to those decisions an erroneous principle of law. There is conf…1 / 2
-
Rivers v. Ross, 182 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Shaw v. Puleo, Fla.1964, 159 So. 2d 641; City of Miami v. Smith, Fla.1964, 165 So. 2d 748, 749.…
-
Fitzgerald v. Molle-Teeters, 520 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…nital condition. Id. Absent a showing of circumstances, such as those alluded to in Radiant Oil Co. v. Herring, 146 Fla. 154, 200 So. 376 (1941), an appellate court must assume that the jury considered all elements of damage. City of Miami v. Smith, 165 So. 2d 748 (Fla.1964). Jurors may conclude that there was no compensable pain and suffering, even where the plaintiff had incurred medical expenses and was to that extent entitled to recover. Id. at 750; White v. Martinez, 359 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). The…
Previewing 3 of 34 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Shaw v. Puleo, 159 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1964)
- Radiant Oil Co. v. Herring, 146 Fla. 154 (Fla. 1941)
- Freeman v. Bandlow, 143 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Smith v. City OF Miami, 153 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)