GABRIELE FEJER AND STEFAN FEJER, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
WHITEHALL LABORATORIES, INC., A CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN FLORIDA, AND SURFSIDE DRUGS INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
The court held that the trial court erred in denying the husband's motion for a new trial on the issue of his damages, as the record supported that he had suffered some damages.
Plaintiff husband and wife sued for personal injuries after using a product. The jury found for the wife and awarded her damages, but found for the hu…
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 On Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by the plaintiff,. STEFAN FEJER, from a final judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict in an action for damages for personal injuries sustained by his wife, GABRIELE FEJER.
The alleged injuries were sustained after-application of the product, “Heet”, which is manufactured by the defendant Whitehall Laboratories, Inc. and was sold to the-plaintiff-husband by the defendant, Surfside Drugs, Inc. Following a trial of the cause,, the jury returned the following verdict:
“We, the jury, find for the plaintiff GABRIELE FEJER and assess her damages in the sum of Seventeen Hundred ($1,700.00) Dollars and for the plaintiff STEFAN FEJER in the sum of No ($0.00) Dollars so say we, all.”
Subsequently the plaintiff-husband moved for a new trial on the issue of damages only claiming that the verdict was defective in that liability was determined in favor of the plaintiff and his damages were assessed at No Dollars although he had proven damages-in the form of doctors, medicine and transportation expenses together with a showing-of future medical expenses and the loss of his wife’s society and companionship. The-trial judge denied this motion.
Plaintiff-husband’s contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in refusing to-grant a new trial on the issue of his damages. We agree with this contention. An examination of the record supports the-claim that the husband has suffered some damages, even if only the medical bills are considered. Further, the wife did not request nor did she attempt to prove that such-damages should be awarded to her; and, the-trial court properly instructed the jury on the issue of damages.
*439It follows that the judgment appealed from should be reversed and a new trial awarded on the question of plaintiff-husband’s damages only.1
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cowart v. Kendall United Methodist Church & Atl. Mut. Ins. Co., 476 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…9 (Fla.1951); Shank, as discussed in Jackson, supra; Fairbanks, supra;4 see, Loftin, supra; Klosters Rederi A/S v. Cowden, 447 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Kinne v. Burgin, 311 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Fejer v. Whitehall Laboratories, Inc., 182 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Thieneman v. Cameron, 126 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961); Stroud v. Govreau, 495 S.W. 2d 682 (Mo.1973); Lewis v. Moss, 347 So. 2d 91 (Ala.1977); Morris v. McCauley’s Quality Transmission Service, 60 Cal.App.3d 964, 132 Cal.Rptr. 3…
-
Pickel v. Rosen, 214 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…dollars was inconsistent with the award of the exact medical expenses to the plaintiff-father.1 See Noll v. Byorick, Fla. App.1959, 108 So. 2d 67. Cf. Loftin v. Anderson, Fla.1953, 66 So. 2d 470; Fejer v. Whitehall Laboratories, Inc., Fla.App.1966, 182 So. 2d 438; Thieneman v. Cameron, Fla.App.1961, 126 So. 2d 170; Annotation: Verdict Omitting Damages for Pain, 20 A.L.R.2d 276. See also Hatchell v. Hayes, Fla.App.1963, 157 So. 2d 855; Smith v. City of Miami, Fla.App.1963, 153 So. 2d 62. Had the jury returne…
-
Grant v. Williams, 190 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…or to indicate that the jury was unduly influenced in any manner, and the Court declines to set aside the determination of the jury as to the plaintiff, Elizabeth A. Williams.” In a recent case, Fejer v. Whitehall Laboratories, Inc., Fla.App.1966, 182 So. 2d 438, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s denial of a new trial on the question of the husband’s damages. Here the record clearly supported the husband’s claim of damages because of the introduction of his medical bills, and the…
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
- Loftin v. Anderson, 66 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 1953)
- Noll v. Byorick, 108 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Ione G. Thieneman and F. Ruley Thieneman v. Iverson Cameron, Jr., 126 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)