CHARLES A. MEANA, APPELLANT,
v.
ST. PETERSBURG KENNEL CLUB, INC., 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 award of damages was grossly inadequate and legally inconsistent with the proof, requiring a new trial on damages.
[1] A jury verdict awarding damages that is grossly inadequate and legally inconsistent with the proof of injury may be grounds for a new trial.
[2] A new trial may be granted on the issue of damages only when the jury's award is inadequate and disregards uncontroverted evidence of special 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 intelligenceAppellant was injured in a motorcycle accident and sued the Kennel Club for negligence. The jury found the Kennel Club negligent but awarded only $200…
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 Additur cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was injured in a motorcycle accident on Gandy Boulevard at the entrance to the St. Petersburg Kennel Club. He brought a personal injury action against the Kennel Club for negligence of its employees in the operation of a manually controlled traffic light signal at the entrance. Upon trial the jury found that the Kennel Club was negligent and awarded appellant $200 damages. The uncontroverted amount of property damages, medical expenses and loss of earnings totaled $715. Appellant testified as to pain and suffering, impairment, sensitivity and loss of manual dexterity in his left hand. There was un-contradicted medical testimony that appellant had sustained five to ten per cent permanent impairment to his left hand.
Appellant moved for a new trial on the issue of damages only, and appellee tendered an additional amount of $515 to settle. The lower court ordered appellee to pay the special damages in the amount of $715, and denied the motion for new trial. No motion for new trial on the issue of liability was made, nor has. appellee filed a cross-assignment of error.
Although the jury was properly instructed as to pain and suffering and permanent injury, it clearly disregarded these instructions and failed to consider all of the elements of damages involved. Nor did the judgment of the trial judge cure the verdict by granting an additur to cover the special damages.
The jury’s verdict was grossly inadequate and legally inconsistent with the proof of the alleged injury. Griffis v. Hill, Fla.1969, 230 So.2d 143; Grossman v. Short, Fla.App.1970, 235 So.2d 11; Short v. Grossman, Fla.1971, 245 So.2d 217. It can only be concluded that the jury did not consider all the elements of damages involved; Pickel v. Rosen, Fla.App.1968, 214 So.2d 730; Anastasio v. Summersett, Fla.App.1969, 217 So.2d 854; Hancock v. Smith, Fla.App.1971, 248 So.2d 211.
Reversed and remanded with directions to grant appellant a new trial upon the issue of damages only.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
MANN, C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur. '
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Amparo Borges v. Jerome F. Jacobs, D.P.M. & Jerome F. Jacobs, D.P.M., P.A., 483 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…1984); Grier v. Reed, 426 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Hector v. Florida Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co., 364 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); McNash v. Oxenhandler, 288 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Meana v. St. Petersburg Kennel Club, Inc., 279 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); 1661 Corp. v. Snyder, 267 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972). See also Griffis v. Hill, 230 So. 2d 143 (Fla.1969); Thornburg v. Pursell, 446 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Ledbetter v. Todd, 418 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Steve…
-
J. R. Ledbetter, M.D. v. Todd, 418 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…t be sustained given the logic of the jury’s other findings. See Stevens v. Mount Vernon Fire Insurance Co., 395 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Anderson v. Chirogianis, 384 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Meana v. St. Petersburg Kennel Club, Inc., 279 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). Even if the jury concluded that, whatever treatment was selected, future pain was unavoidable given the nature of the injury, the two surgeries must have caused some amount of pain and suffering Todd would not otherwise have expe…
-
Borandi v. ST. Anthony's Hosp., Inc., 291 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…learly and grossly inadequate. [*55] As appellee filed no motion for a new trial on the issue of liability nor cross assignments of error, we reverse and remand for a new trial on the issue of damages only. Meana v. St. Petersburg Kennel Club, Inc., 279 So. 2d 329, Fla.App.2d 1973. Reversed and remanded with directions. MANN, C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.…
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)
- Pickel v. Rosen, 214 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Short v. Grossman, 245 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1971)
- Anastasio v. Summersett, 217 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- Grossman v. Short, 235 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Hancock v. Smith, 248 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)