MARVIN J. HANCOCK, JR., A MINOR BY AND THROUGH HIS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, MARVIN HANCOCK, SR., AND MARVIN HANCOCK, SR., INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOSEPH M. SMITH, DOROTHY SMITH, HIS WIFE AND JAFCO BUILDERS, 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.
A minor plaintiff recovered a jury verdict of zero dollars for injuries from roof trusses that fell on him at a construction site, while his father recovered $394 in the same verdict. The appellate court reversed, finding the jury's zero-dollar award for the minor was contrary to law and evidence, as the jury had already found negligence by awarding damages to the father.
The trial court erred in denying the motion for a new trial because the jury's zero-dollar verdict for the minor was contrary to law and evidence. A jury of reasonable men could not conclude there was no injury to the minor when that same jury found the defendants negligently injured the child by awarding the father damages.
[1] A jury verdict awarding zero damages for pain and suffering is contrary to law and evidence when the jury has found liability and awarded damages for medical expenses.
[2] A jury's disregard of a trial court's instructions regarding compensation for pain and suffering warrants a new trial on the issue of damages.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It is clear therefore, that the trial judge should have granted the motion for a new trial inasmuch as the jury could not have reached its decision as to zero dollars for pain and suffering in this case except by a disregard of the trial court's instructions.”
Establishes that the zero-dollar verdict was legally impossible given the jury instructions on pain and suffering damages.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarvin J. Hancock, Jr., a minor, suffered a broken leg when roof trusses stored on the defendants' home construction site fell on him while he was pla…
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 Pain And Suffering Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants are Marvin J. Hancock, a minor by and through his father and next friend, Marvin Hancock, Sr., and Marvin Hancock, Sr., individually. They were the plaintiffs in the trial court. The appellant Marvin J. Hancock, Jr., the minor, suffered a verdict at the hands of the jury which read, “We, the jury, find for the plaintiff, Marvin J. Hancock, Jr., and assess his damages in the sum of zero dollars.” The same jury as a part of the same verdict form returned a verdict for the father in the sum of $394.00. This appeal is from the final judgment for zero dollars rendered for the minor plaintiff and the sole error assigned is the denial of appellant’s motion for a new trial on the issue of damages. We reverse.
The complaint filed on behalf of the son by the father sought damages for a broken leg suffered by the son when roof trusses stored on appellee’s home construction site fell on the son while he was playing in the area. The salient grounds of the motion for new trial are as follows:
“4. The verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence in that the jury, in rendering its verdict, obviously did not consider all of the elements of damages to which the minor plaintiff was entitled and thereby disregarded damages to the minor plaintiff for the personal injuries and for pain and suffering in the past and future.
“5. The jury, by returning a verdict in the exact amount of the medical bills *212in favor of the plaintiff, MARVIN HANCOCK, SR., found against the defendants, JOSEPH M. SMITH and DOROTHY SMITH, on the issue of liability. However, the jury, by returning a verdict in the amount of zero dollars in favor of the plaintiff, MARVIN J. HANCOCK, JR., returned a verdict that is contrary to the law and the evidence and the Court’s charge in that the jury disregarded the damages to the minor plaintiff for personal injuries and past, present, and future pain and suffering.”
The trial court properly instructed the jury at plaintiff’s request according to Florida Standard Jury Instructions 6.2, 31 F.S.A., which includes the fixing of compensation for pain and suffering. It is clear therefore, that the trial judge should have granted the motion for a new trial inasmuch as the jury could not have reached its decision as to zero dollars for pain and suffering in this case except by a disregard of the trial court’s instructions.
We need not discuss the law involved since the matter has been recently and fully discussed in the reported cases of Griffis v. Hill, Fla.1970, 230 So.2d 143; and in Grossman v. Short, Fla.App.1970, 235 So.2d 11. cf. Anastasio v. Summersett, Fla.App.1969, 217 So.2d 854. In the last cited case, it is clear that the basis for the decision was that a jury of reasonable men could not have concluded that there was not in fact injury. In the present case, there is no ground for a jury of reasonable men to hold that the plaintiff was not in fact injured because that jury found that the child was negligently injured when it rendered a verdict for the father against the defendants, Joseph M. Smith and Dorothy Smith, his wife.
Reversed and remanded with directions to grant the appellant Marvin J. Hancock, Jr., a minor, by and through his father and next friend, Marvin Hancock, Sr., a new trial upon the issue of damages only.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
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)…, as here, only by an appropriate (and required) motion 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 autho…
-
Shank v. Konstantinos Ioannis Fassoulas, 304 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…no objection has been asserted in a timely manner.1 With respect to the defendants’ next assertion that the verdict was reasonable, we think this case resembles both Pickel v. Rosen, Fla.App.1968, 214 So. 2d 730 and Hancock v. Smith, Fla.App.1971, 248 So. 2d 211, involving similar inconsistent verdicts. In our view, the holdings in each of these cases, decided by this court, clearly justified the action taken by the court in granting a new trial. By their cross-appeal, however, the plaintiffs point out th…
-
Nadia Bach and Ronald Carter v. Murray, 658 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…th DCA 1987); Vega v. Mahfuz, 367 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 378 So. 2d 346 (Fla.1979); Worley v. Kirkland, 360 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Perez v. American Mut. Liab. Ins. Co., 288 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); Hancock v. Smith, 248 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). This result is equally applicable to Carter’s claim for loss of consortium. Loftin v. Anderson, 66 So. 2d 470 (Fla.1953); McCloud, 579 So. 2d at 774; Klosters Rederi A/S v. Cowden, 447 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Shaw v. Pete…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- Anastasio v. Summersett, 217 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- Grossman v. Short, 235 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)