ELIZABETH GETTINGER, APPELLANT,
v.
AMERICANA HOTEL OF BAL HARBOUR, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION D/B/A AMERICANA HOTEL, CONSOLIDATED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN INSURANCE CORPORATION, AND AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN INSURANCE 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.
The appellate court reversed the trial court's remittitur order and reinstated an $850,000 jury verdict for a slip-and-fall plaintiff, finding the verdict supported by substantial competent evidence and the damages not excessive.
A jury verdict awarding $850,000 in a slip-and-fall case against a hotel for 100% negligence must be upheld when supported by substantial competent evidence and the damages are not excessive given the plaintiff's extensive injuries.
[1] A trial court's remittitur or new trial order will be reversed when the jury verdict is supported by substantial competent evidence and the damages awarded are not excess…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceElizabeth Gettinger suffered injuries in a slip-and-fall accident at the Americana Hotel of Bal Harbour and obtained a jury verdict of $850,000 agains…
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 Jury Verdict Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff Elizabeth Gettinger appeals a remittitur or new trial order entered by the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida in a slip-and-fall, personal injury tort action after the jury had returned $850,000 verdict for the plaintiff against the defendant Americana Hotel of Bal Harbour, Inc. and its insurers Consolidated Mutual Insurance Company and American Home Assurance Company. The plaintiff contends that the jury verdict finding the defendant 100 percent negligent was based upon substantial competent evidence, that the damages awarded were not excessive or unconscionable in view of the plaintiff’s extensive injuries and resultant medical expenses, and that the court erred in entering the order of remittitur or new trial. We entirely agree. Allred v. Chittenden Pool Supply, Inc., 298 So. 2d 361 (Fla.1974); Laskey v. Smith, 239 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1970); Hanson v. Florida East Coast Railway, 334 So. 2d 63 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); Mansell v. Eidge, 179 So. 2d 624 (Fla.3d DCA 1965); Clark v. Russo, 133 So. 2d 764 (Fla.2d DCA 1961), cert. discharged 147 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1962); Mow v.
F. P. Sadowski Corp., 122 So. 2d 46 (Fla.3d DCA 1960), cert. den. 131 So. 2d 3 (Fla.1961). We further find no merit in the defendant’s cross assignments of error and arguments based thereon. The order appealed from is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court with directions to enter a judgment for the plaintiff in accordance with the jury verdict.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Laskey v. Smith, 239 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1970)
- Russo v. Nolan Clark, 147 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1962)
- Rolande Allred v. Chittenden Pool Supply, Inc., 298 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 1974)
- Mansell v. Eidge, 179 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- MOW v. F. P. Sadowski Corp., 122 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- F. P. Sadowski Corp. v. MOW, 131 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 1961)
- Nolan Clark v. Russo, 133 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- BOB Restina Imports, Inc. v. Glen Covey & Assocs., Inc., 334 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)