THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY, INC., A MARYLAND CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
YOLANDA LANTERI AND ROBERT ANTHONY LANTERI, HER HUSBAND, 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.
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company appeals a jury verdict awarding $30,000 to an employee injured while working for the company. The Florida appellate court affirmed both the jury verdict and the trial court's post-judgment reduction of $5,000, finding no error in the jury instructions or trial court's rulings.
The court held that the jury charge correctly instructed jurors to eliminate from damage consideration any injuries sustained in subsequent accidents; that no instruction regarding present money value reduction was required because none was requested; and that the $5,000 post-judgment reduction properly conformed the verdict to the evidence and pre-trial order.
“in the event it found the plaintiff, Yolanda Lanteri, had been injured and suffered damages as a result of the initial accident, it should eliminate from any damage consideration injuries sustained in the subsequent accidents”
Establishes the correct jury instruction on excluding subsequent accident injuries from damages
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceYolanda Lanteri was injured while employed by Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company. She sustained injuries in an initial accident and subsequently in …
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 Pretrial Order Compliance cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant appeals from an adverse jury verdict and final judgment thereon, awarding the appellees $30,000.00 for injuries sustained while the appellee, Yolanda Lanteri, was employed by the appellant.1 The appellees had joined in the appeal on the trial court’s post-judgment order directing a reduction of $5,000.00 in the judgment. We affirm.
The principal point raised by the appellant for reversal was the charge of the *159trial court relevant to subsequent accidents. Reviewing the charge in its entirety, we find it correctly charged the jury that in the event it found the plaintiff, Yolanda Lan-teri, had been injured and suffered damages as a result of the initial accident, it should eliminate from any damage consideration injuries sustained in the subsequent accidents. Therefore, we find no error in the charge. Staicer v. Hall, Fla.App.1961, 130 So.2d 113; Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Lawler, Fla.App.1963, 151 So. 2d 852; Southeastern General Corporation v. Gorff, Fla.App.1966, 186 So.2d 273; 32 Fla.Jur., Trial, § 156.
The appellant has also urged error in the failure of the trial court to render an instruction that the award for loss of earning capacity should be reduced to present money value. No such instruction was requested and, therefore, we find no error in the failure of the trial judge to give same. Fred Howland, Inc. v. Morris, 143 Fla. 189, 196 So. 472, 128 A.L.R. 1013; Camp Phosphate Co. for Use and Benefit of Dudley v. Stokes, Fla.1949, 41 So.2d 340; Katz v. Red Top Sedan Service, Inc., Fla.App.1962, 136 So.2d 11; 32 Fla.Jur., Trial, § 142.
On the appellees’ cross-assignment, they urge that the trial court erred in its post-judgment $5,000.00 reduction order. From an examination of the record, we find that there was a pre-trial order which permitted the court to deduct from any verdict the plaintiffs might obtain any monies which had been paid to the plaintiff, Yolanda Lanteri, by the defendant. No error has been urged in the entry of the pre-trial order and it is apparent that the trial judge was only making the verdict conform to the evidence and his previous order by the entry of the post-judgment reduction order.
Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the final judgment here under review and the post-judgment order be and the same are hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Selma Gross v. Lyons, 721 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…WARNER, Judge, concurring specially. Upon further research, I also think that the majority opinion conflicts with Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Lanteri, 221 So. 2d 158, 159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969), in which the third district stated with regard to jury instructions on subsequent accidents: Reviewing the charge in its entirety, we find it correctly charged the jury that in the event it found the plaintiff, Yolanda Lan…
-
Lucius Bonner McLEOD, Jr. v. Young, 257 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)…on their duty to reduce future damages to present value. However, and this is the critical distinguishing point, the defendant requested such charge. The case precisely on point is Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. v. Lanteri, Fla.App.1969, 221 So. 2d 158. Here, the court held: “The appellant has also urged error in the failure of the trial court to render an instruction that the award for loss of earning capacity should be reduced to present money value. No such instruction was requested and, there…
Authorities Cited
- Fred Howland, Inc. v. Morris, 143 Fla. 189 (Fla. 1940)
- Staicer v. Hall, 130 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Lawler, 151 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Katz v. RED TOP Sedan Serv., Inc., 136 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Se. Gen. Corp. v. Gorff, 186 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Camp Phosphate Co. v. Stokes, 41 So.2d 340 (Fla. 1949)