CLAYTON A. BELL, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MELISSA Y. BELL, APPELLANT,
v.
BAPTIST MEMORIAL HOSPITAL INC., GRACE I. SAGCAL AND ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
In a wrongful death medical malpractice case where liability was admitted, the trial court granted a new trial after a jury verdict of $450,000, citing manifest weight of the evidence, improper argument, and jury consideration of tax matters. The appellate court reversed, finding no basis in the record to disturb the verdict and holding that none of the trial court's grounds justified a new trial.
The court reversed the order granting a new trial. The verdict did not exceed the maximum limit of a reasonable range and was supported by ample evidence of the parents' pain and suffering. The "Golden Rule" argument, if it occurred, was harmless error because it was timely objected to and the court gave a cautionary instruction. The jury's question about tax consequences was harmless because the court instructed the jury that tax matters were not in evidence.
[1] A trial court order granting a new trial will be reversed on appeal if the record reveals no basis for disturbing the jury's verdict.
[2] A jury verdict will not be considered against the manifest weight of the evidence if there is ample proof to support it.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“the verdict was not "exceed the maximum limit of a reasonable range within which the jury may properly operate."”
Establishes the appellate standard for reviewing jury verdicts to determine if a new trial should be granted.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant's minor daughter died over nine days after being negligently injected in the spine with a toxic drug during outpatient chemotherapy treatmen…
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 Wrongful Death Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
At issue here is a trial court order granting appellees a new trial after the jury returned a $450,000 verdict for appellant in a wrongful death action. Appellees admitted liability in the case and the trial was held solely to determine damages. The court granted appellees’ motion for a new trial after the rendition of the verdict on grounds that (1) the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence, (2) appellant’s trial counsel had made an improper “Golden Rule” argument in his closing statement, and (3) the jury had considered matters outside the record, i. e., the tax consequences of the award, in arriving at their verdict.
Appellant argues that the granting of a new trial was erroneous because the verdict did not “exceed the maximum limit of a reasonable range within which the jury may properly operate.” Bould v. Touchette, 349 So. 2d 1181 (Fla.1977); Lassitter v. International Union of Operating Engineers, 349 So. 2d 622 (Fla.1977). Appellees insist that the broad discretion given to trial judges in granting a new trial should not be disturbed on appeal. Castlewood International Corporation v. LaFleur, 322 So. 2d 520 (Fla.1975). We agree with appellant and reverse.
There is no evidence in the record here that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence. To the contrary the testimony showed that appellant’s minor daughter died over a period of nine days after she was negligently injected in the spine with a toxic drug during an outpatient chemotherapy treatment for leukemia. Appellants were told immediately that nothing could be done to prevent their daughter’s death. There was ample proof of their mental pain and suffering during the 9-day period that she survived as well as after her death.
With regard to the purported “Golden Rule” argument, the record shows that appellant’s counsel’s remarks, if indeed they could be classified as “Golden Rule” argument, were timely objected to by appellees’ counsel and a sharply-worded cautionary instruction was given by the court. We also note from the trial transcript that both parties’ counsel used the abstract “you” in their closing remarks to the jury.
Similarly, the jury’s question about the tax consequences of their award was harmless under the circumstances presented here. The court instructed the jury clearly that tax matters were not in evidence and that they must decide the case solely on the evidence presented. We will not presume that the jury ignored those instructions.
In summary, the record before us, which is the same record which was before the trial judge, reveals no basis for disturbing the jury’s verdict. We therefore reverse the order granting a new trial and remand the case for reinstatement of the jury’s verdict.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
McCORD, C. J., and BOYER and MILLS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baptist Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Bell, 384 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1980)…OVERTON, Justice. This is a petition for writ of certiorari to review a decision of the First District Court of Appeal, reported at 363 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), which reversed the trial court’s order directing a new trial on the issue of damages. We find conflict with Castlewood International Corp. v. LaFleur, 322 So. 2d 520 (Fla.1975), and Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla.1959). We…
-
BEW v. Williams, 373 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)…e connotation suggested requires an assumption that the jury was inattentive and that such inattention resulted in completely changing the sense of the argument. In the recent First District Court of Appeal case of Bell v. Baptist Memorial Hospital, 363 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), our sister court reversed the granting of a new trial. The new trial had been granted on three grounds, one of which was a purported “Golden Rule” argument. In reversing, the court noted “that both parties’ counsel used the abst…
-
Lapidus v. Citizens Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 389 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…or which Lapidus alone was responsible,1 the record suggests nothing to overcome the presumption that the court’s instructions were followed, see Putnam Lumber Co. v. Berry, 146 Fla. 595, 2 So. 2d 133 (1941); Bell v. Baptist Memorial Hospital, Inc., 363 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Leisure Group, Inc. v. Williams, 351 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); National Car Rental System, Inc. v. Holland, 269 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972), and there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict; (2) the right…
Authorities Cited
- Dorthy Bould and Edward Simonson, Jr. v. Touchette, 349 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1977)
- Lassitter v. Int'l Union OF Operating Eng'rs, 349 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 1976)
- Castlewood Int'l Corp. v. LaFLEUR, 322 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1975)