JOSE A. RODRIGUEZ AND LEAH RODRIGUEZ, APPELLANTS,
v.
ALLGREEN CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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 court held that the jury's verdict for the plaintiff husband was grossly inadequate and legally inconsistent with the proofs, suggesting a compromise on liability and damages.
Plaintiff husband suffered permanent disability and significant damages in an automobile accident, but the jury awarded him only the sum of his medica…
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 was a personal injury case arising out of an automobile accident.
The liability issue was strongly contested.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff husband in approximately the sum of his medical bills. Without going into detail it is manifest and uncontradicted that he suffered damages greatly in excess of the sum allowed because of permanent disability, loss of wages, and pain and suffering occasioned by hospitalization, a bone transplant and required use of crutches for 4i/2 months, and other things.
The jury shortly before rendition of verdict asked, “can we compensate the plaintiffs for the medical expense only?” While we cannot plumb the mind of the jury, this question (correctly answered by the trial court) coupled with their return of only the medical expenses causes us to strongly suspect as a matter of consistency that the jury compromised the issues of liability and damages.
We are of the opinion 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 entered in favor of the wife, Leah Rodriguez.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
OWEN and REED, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Beauvais v. Edell, 760 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…e.g., Watson v. Builders Square, Inc., 563 So. 2d 721 (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, w…1 / 2
-
Gonzalez v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 463 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…nd uncontro-verted evidence that the pain continued and would continue well after the injury, the damage award is grossly inadequate, and a new trial on the issue of damages is required. Stevens, 395 So. 2d at 1207. In Rodriguez v. Allgreen Corp., 242 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971), the jury, after asking the court whether it could award only medical expenses, awarded an amount approximately the same as the medical bills. The record contained uncontradicted evidence that the plaintiff also suffered permanen…
-
Cedars OF Lebanon Hosp. Corp. v. Orlando Silva, M.D., 476 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…of an inadequate damage award, a retrial should not be restricted to damages if there is strong reason to suspect that the verdict is a “compromise verdict.” See 1661 Corp. ¶. Snyder, 267 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); Rodriguez v. Allgreen Corp., 242 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Duquette v. Hindman, 152 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963). The present case, however, is not one where the evidence of the defendants’ liability is tenuous, and where it thus appears that jurors who would have found no liability w…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Griffis v. Hill, 230 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 1969)
- Pickel v. Rosen, 214 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Grossman v. Short, 235 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)