RICHARD ALLEN PICKEL, JR., A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, RICHARD ALLEN PICKEL, SR., AND RICHARD ALLEN PICKEL, SR., INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
SHEILA MARKOWITZ ROSEN, 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.
A minor injured in an automobile accident recovered a jury verdict establishing the defendant's liability and awarding the father full medical expenses, but the jury awarded the minor zero dollars for pain and suffering. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial on damages, holding that an award of zero dollars for pain and suffering was internally inconsistent with an award of exact medical expenses where uncontradicted evidence showed the minor suffered a painful surgical procedure.
The court held that the verdict was internally inconsistent and required a new trial on the issue of the minor's damages alone. An award of zero dollars for pain and suffering was inconsistent with the award of exact medical expenses where uncontradicted evidence established the minor suffered a painful surgical procedure.
“the question before us is whether the verdict was so inconsistent with regard to the damages as to require a new trial on the issue of the minor's damages alone. We hold that it was.”
Establishes the core legal issue and the court's holding on the inconsistency doctrine
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA minor was injured in an automobile accident and sustained a class 'A' injury requiring hospitalization and surgery to remove a hematoma from his lef…
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
This is an action brought by the plaintiff-minor and his father, as next friend, to recover for personal injuries and medical expenses suffered by the minor in an automobile accident. The defendant denied any negligence and raised the defense of contributory negligence. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, awarding the father $701.20 (the exact amount of the medical expenses incurred on behalf of the minor) but awarding the minor zero dollars for his pain and suffering.
*731Thus, although the issue of liability was resolved by the jury in favor of the plaintiffs, the question before us is whether the verdict was so inconsistent with regard to the damages as to require a new trial on the issue of the minor’s damages alone. We hold that it was.
The minor evidenced objective signs of injury. The uncontradicted evidence was that he had sustained a class “A” injury, that is, there was a visible sign of injury such as a bleeding wound or a distorted member, or that he had to be carried from the scene of the accident in an ambulance. As a result, he was hospitalized for surgery to remove a large hematoma on his left leg. The wound was cauterized with silver nitrate and a rubber drain was inserted in the wound from the five inch incision. This drain was kept there for approximately one week. There was uncontroverted evidence that this procedure was somewhat painful. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the minor had a pre-existing injury or had suffered from any pre-existing pathological condition.
Under these circumstances the award of zero 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 returned a verdict for the plaintiff minor for even a small amount, perhaps our result would have been different. A verdict for grossly inadequate damages stands on the same ground as a verdict for excessive damages, a new trial may be as readily granted in one case as the other. Roberts v. Bushore, Fla.1966, 182 So.2d 401. See also Loftin v. Wilson, Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 185.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial on the sole issue of the damage to the minor plaintiff.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (21 total)
-
Cowart v. Kendall United Methodist Church & Atl. Mut. Ins. Co., 476 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…ion for new trial on these grounds. Short v. Grossman, 245 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1971); Griffis v. Hill, 230 So. 2d 143 (Fla.1969); Faulk v. Schafer, 288 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Hancock v. Smith, 248 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Pickel v. Rosen, 214 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). See generally Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Jackson, 433 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Considering the point directly at issue, it is clear, as demonstrated by the unanimity of authority in Florida and elsewhere which so holds, that t…
-
Rodriguez v. Allgreen Corp., 242 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…n with reference to the plaintiff husband that the verdict was grossly inadequate and legally inconsistent with the proofs. Grossman v. Short, Fla.App.1970, 235 So. 2d 11; Griffis v. Hill, Fla.1969, 230 So. 2d 143 and Pickel v. Rosen, Fla.App. 1968, 214 So. 2d 730. We reverse with directions to grant the plaintiff, Jose A. Rodriguez, a new trial upon both the issue of liability and the issue of damages. Other points raised on appeal do not reveal error and do not merit discussion. We affirm the judgment ente…
-
Beauvais v. Edell, 760 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Gonzalez v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 463 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Skelly v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 445 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Rodriguez v. Allgreen Corp., 242 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Pickel v. Rosen, 214 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). Daigneault, 624 So. 2d at 819-20. In the cases cited in Daigneault, it appears that it was undisputed that the injuries resulted from the accidents. In Daigneault, however, whether the injuries resulted from the accident was in…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 21 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Loftin v. Wilson, 67 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1953)
- Loftin v. Anderson, 66 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 1953)
- Noll v. Byorick, 108 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Roberts v. Bushore, 182 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 1966)
- Hatchell v. Hayes, 157 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)
- Clark v. Yellow CAB Co. OF Miami, 195 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Ione G. Thieneman and F. Ruley Thieneman v. Iverson Cameron, Jr., 126 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Gabriele Fejer and Stefan Fejer v. Whitehall Labs., Inc., 182 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Smith v. City OF Miami, 153 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)