DAVID BRADDY, SR., AND NEHEMIAH BRADDY, APPELLANTS,
v.
HAROLD B. WAHL, 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.
The appellants challenged a trial judge's order setting aside a jury verdict in favor of Wahl, a plaintiff in a three-car rear-end collision, and granting a new trial. The court affirmed the trial judge's discretion to set aside the verdict as grossly inadequate because the jury apparently failed to award damages for pain and suffering despite clear evidence of traumatic injury.
The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in granting a new trial. The court affirmed the order setting aside the verdict because the apparent failure of the jury to award damages for pain and suffering, despite clear evidence of traumatic injury, rendered the verdict so grossly inadequate as to shock the judicial conscience and warrant a new trial.
“Under any view of the evidence it is apparent that Plaintiff Harold B. Wahl received traumatic injuries while sitting in a motor vehicle properly stopped in traffic”
Establishes the undisputed fact of injury supporting the trial judge's finding that the jury verdict was inadequate
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarold B. Wahl was the driver of a middle car in a three-car rear-end automobile collision. He was properly stopped in traffic when injured. The jury …
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 Inadequate Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants David and Nehemiah Braddy, defendants below, appeal an order setting aside the verdict and judgment rendered in favor of Appellee Harold B. Wahl, one of the plaintiffs below, and granting him a new trial.
Wahl was the driver of the middle car involved in a three-car rear-end automobile collision. In setting aside the verdict and judgment in favor of Wahl in the sum of $1,000.00 upon numerous grounds, separately and severally, the trial judge found inter alia: (1) Under any view of the evidence it is apparent that Plaintiff Harold B. Wahl received traumatic injuries while sitting in a motor vehicle properly stopped in traffic; (2) The special damages were greater than the amount of the verdict for Plaintiff Harold B. Wahl; and (3) It is obvious that the jury failed to award any damages to said Plaintiff for pain and suffering either on the basis of temporary disability or permanent disability. The total substance of the order was to the effect that the verdict was so grossly inadequate as to shock the judicial conscience of the court, was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, and was induced by some misconception of the law and evidence on the part of the jury.
This question has been belabored at great length in numerous decisions by appellate courts of this state, and in our opinion no useful purpose would be accomplished by setting forth detailed excerpts from the evidence and record in this cause and weighing same against the innumerable principles of law previously written upon the subject. We have reached the same conclusion as that stated by the Second District Court of Appeal in ^'Austria v. Donovan:1
“We have read the testimony in the case and cannot say that the lower court abused its discretion in granting a new trial because of the apparent failure of the jury to give any damages for pain and suffering, loss of earnings, etc. This matter is within the discretion of the trial judge and falls within the rule laid down in Cloud v. Fallís, Fla.App.1958, 107 So.2d 264, cert, discharged, Fla., 110 So.2d 669.”
Having concluded that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in granting a new trial, the order appealed is
Affirmed.
STURGIS, Chief Judge, RAWLS, J., and PATTEN, GEORGE L., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Braddy v. State, 177 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 1965)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 173 So. 2d 172.…
Authorities Cited
- Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1959)
- Cloud v. Fallis, 107 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Austria v. Gertrude P. Donovan, 169 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)