M. E. NORMAN, D/B/A IMPORT MOTORS, APPELLANT,
v.
PAUL A. MULLIN AND LENA MAE MULLIN, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Present Value Of Future Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
In this negligence action plaintiff-appel-lees were awarded a judgment against appellant which included future loss of wages, earning capacity and medical and hospitalization expenses. Although requested, the trial judge failed to charge the jury on their duty to reduce such future damages to present value.1 This was reversible error.2
As to liability, no meritorious question is raised that the jury verdict was improper, and the verdict thereto appertaining is amply supported by the evidence. The new trial awarded herein should therefore be only as to damages, and the judgment is affirmed as to liability. All other points raised on appeal, including the one on cross-appeal, are without merit or are rendered moot.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed as to liability but reversed, and a new trial awarded, as to damages alone.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
HOBSON, A. C. J., and MANN and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Burdi, 427 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…ectly represents the law of Florida. Braddock v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 80 So. 2d 662 (Fla.1955). In fact, it would have been reversible error if the charge had not been given. DuPuis v. Heider, 113 Fla. 679, 152 So. 659 (1934); Norman v. Mullin, 249 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). Furthermore, although such evidence is indeed admissible at the behest of either party, Annot., Damages — Testimony by Actuary, 79 A.L.R.2d 275 (1961); see City of Tallahassee v. Ashmore, 158 Fla. 73, 27 So. 2d 660 (1946), it is…
-
Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Garrison, 336 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)…n to predict them rather than to ignore them altogether.” Third, we note that Standard Jury Instruction 6.10 requires Reduction of Damages to Present Value, and failure to instruct the jury on this point is error. Norman v. Mullin, Fla.App.2d 1971, 249 So. 2d 733. This instruction is based on the concept that the plaintiff will be able to profitably invest his award, so that less money is required now to compensate him for money which, absent defendant’s negligence, he would not have received until some futu…
-
Howell v. Bennie Woods, 489 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…n to the court’s attention before the jury retired to deliberate. Hegney therefore has to do neither with the instruction involved in the case sub judice nor with the question of fundamental error. Another case appellant now cites, Norman v. Mullin, 249 So. 2d 733 (Fla.2d DCA 1971), was reversed because of lack of a charge on reduction to present value, but the opinion does not say whether there was timely objection or not. Capone involved an omission of part of the same basic damages instruction as that whi…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dupuis v. Heider, 113 Fla. 679 (Fla. 1934)
- Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Lassiter, 58 Fla. 234 (Fla. 1909)
- Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Avor Young, 104 Fla. 541 (Fla. 1932)