JOSEPH W. GRIFFIS, APPELLANT,
v.
EVELYN LONG PRYLE HILL, 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.
This case involves an appeal concerning the inadequacy of a jury verdict in a damages action. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding that the jury's award, which exceeded the proven medical expenses, was permissible for other damages like pain and suffering.
No, the jury's verdict was not inadequate. The court held that the jury could award an amount exceeding proven medical expenses to cover other damages, such as pain and suffering and loss of earnings.
“The main point of contention is the inadequateness of the verdict and judgment.”
Identifies the central issue on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant sued for damages and presented evidence of approximately $797.90 in actual medical expenses. The jury returned a verdict of $1785.00. Th…
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 Loss Of Earnings cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a final judgment based upon a jury verdict in an action for damages. The main point of contention is the inadequateness of the verdict and judgment. Motion for new trial was denied.
It appears from the evidence that actual medical expenses of approximately $797.90 *359was proved as the only evidence of tangible damages. The jury verdict was for $1785.00
Inasmuch as the jury fixed the amount of its verdict 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).
CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Griffis v. Hill, 230 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 1969)…ections to remand the cause to the trial court with directions to grant a new trial on liability and damages. It is so ordered. ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW and ADKINS, JJ., concur. THORNAL, J., agrees to conclusion. CARLTON, T., dissents. . 217 So. 2d 358 (Fla.App.1st 1968). . Shaw v. Puleo, 159 So. 2d 641 (Fla.1964). . City of Miami v. Smith, 165 So. 2d 748 (Fla.1964). . 127 So. 2d 441 (Fla.1961). . 172 So. 2d 853 (Fla.App.1st 1965). . 166 So. 2d 146 (Fla.1964). . 182 So. 2d 401, 402 (Fla.1966…
-
Short v. Grossman, 245 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1971)…tended to withdraw from appellate courts the right to interpret and evaluate the evidence in determining whether a new trial should be granted on the ground that the damages awarded are inadequate.” (page 711) The District Court in Griffis v. Hill, 217 So. 2d 358 (Fla.App. 1st, 1968), in affirming an appeal based upon inadequacy of damages, said: “Inasmuch as the jury fixed the amount of its verdict at a figure in excess of proven medical expenses, presumably for any and all other damages accruing to the cl…
-
Grossman v. Short, 235 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…n Griffis v. Hill, supra, the plaintiff in a personal injury action showed medical expenses of $797.90, and received a favorable verdict for $1,785. On appeal by the plaintiff claiming inadequacy of the verdict, the appellate court (first district), 217 So. 2d 358 affirmed, saying: “Inasmuch as the jury fixed the amount of its verdict 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…
Authorities Cited
- Shaw v. Puleo, 159 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1964)
- City OF Miami v. Smith, 165 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1964)