43
Fla. L. Weekly D353a
Fla. L. Weekly D353a
Torts
— Automobile accident — Damages — Trial court erred in denying plaintiff’s
motion for additur as to past noneconomic damages where jury awarded nothing
for past noneconomic damages, but evidence that plaintiff has suffered past
pain and suffering in his shoulder as result of accident was undisputed
— Automobile accident — Damages — Trial court erred in denying plaintiff’s
motion for additur as to past noneconomic damages where jury awarded nothing
for past noneconomic damages, but evidence that plaintiff has suffered past
pain and suffering in his shoulder as result of accident was undisputed
JAGDEO SUKRAJ, Appellant, v. CHEAR
PHOEUNG and JIMMY PHOEUNG, Appellees. 2nd District. Case No. 2D17-159. Opinion
filed February 14, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County;
Cynthia Newton, Judge. Counsel: Robert J. Healy Jr., of Salter, Healy, Bassett
& Rivera, St. Petersburg, for Appellant. Michael C. Clarke and Betsy E.
Gallagher of Kubicki Draper, P.A., Tampa, for Appellees.
PHOEUNG and JIMMY PHOEUNG, Appellees. 2nd District. Case No. 2D17-159. Opinion
filed February 14, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County;
Cynthia Newton, Judge. Counsel: Robert J. Healy Jr., of Salter, Healy, Bassett
& Rivera, St. Petersburg, for Appellant. Michael C. Clarke and Betsy E.
Gallagher of Kubicki Draper, P.A., Tampa, for Appellees.
(CATLIN, CATHERINE M., Associate
Judge.) Jagdeo Sukraj appeals the denial of his posttrial motion for additur or
new trial. We reverse the portion of the order denying Sukraj’s motion as to
past noneconomic damages but affirm in all other respects.
Judge.) Jagdeo Sukraj appeals the denial of his posttrial motion for additur or
new trial. We reverse the portion of the order denying Sukraj’s motion as to
past noneconomic damages but affirm in all other respects.
Sukraj sued Chear and Jimmy Phoeung
seeking past and future medical expenses and noneconomic damages after a car
accident. The jury awarded him $53,431.16 in past medical expenses and $50,000
in future medical expenses but awarded him nothing for past or future
noneconomic damages. In his motion and on appeal, Sukraj argued that the jury
verdict was inadequate and against the manifest weight of the evidence because
he offered unrebutted evidence at trial that he had suffered a permanent,
painful injury to his shoulder, neck, and back.
seeking past and future medical expenses and noneconomic damages after a car
accident. The jury awarded him $53,431.16 in past medical expenses and $50,000
in future medical expenses but awarded him nothing for past or future
noneconomic damages. In his motion and on appeal, Sukraj argued that the jury
verdict was inadequate and against the manifest weight of the evidence because
he offered unrebutted evidence at trial that he had suffered a permanent,
painful injury to his shoulder, neck, and back.
This court reviews the denial of a
motion for new trial or additur for an abuse of discretion. Campbell v.
Griffith, 971 So. 2d 232, 235 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). And “where there is
conflicting evidence, the weight to be given that evidence is within the
province of the jury.” Id. (citing K-Mart Corp. v. Collins, 707
So. 2d 753, 755 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)). At trial, the evidence that Sukraj had
suffered past pain and suffering in his shoulder as a result of the accident
was undisputed. Therefore, the verdict awarding him nothing for past noneconomic
damages for his shoulder is inadequate, and we reverse the portion of the order
on appeal that denies Sukraj’s motion seeking additur on that basis. See
Ellender v. Bricker, 967 So. 2d 1088, 1093 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (“[W]here
‘the evidence is undisputed or substantially undisputed that a plaintiff has
experienced and will experience pain and suffering as a result of an accident,
a zero award for pain and suffering is inadequate as a matter of law.’ ”
(quoting Dolphin Cruise Line, Inc. v. Stassinopoulos, 731 So. 2d 708,
710 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999))); see also § 768.043(2), Fla. Stat. (2016).
motion for new trial or additur for an abuse of discretion. Campbell v.
Griffith, 971 So. 2d 232, 235 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). And “where there is
conflicting evidence, the weight to be given that evidence is within the
province of the jury.” Id. (citing K-Mart Corp. v. Collins, 707
So. 2d 753, 755 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)). At trial, the evidence that Sukraj had
suffered past pain and suffering in his shoulder as a result of the accident
was undisputed. Therefore, the verdict awarding him nothing for past noneconomic
damages for his shoulder is inadequate, and we reverse the portion of the order
on appeal that denies Sukraj’s motion seeking additur on that basis. See
Ellender v. Bricker, 967 So. 2d 1088, 1093 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (“[W]here
‘the evidence is undisputed or substantially undisputed that a plaintiff has
experienced and will experience pain and suffering as a result of an accident,
a zero award for pain and suffering is inadequate as a matter of law.’ ”
(quoting Dolphin Cruise Line, Inc. v. Stassinopoulos, 731 So. 2d 708,
710 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999))); see also § 768.043(2), Fla. Stat. (2016).
However, because the evidence that
Sukraj had suffered past pain and suffering for the injuries to his neck and
back and would experience future pain and suffering as a result of the accident
was disputed at trial, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Sukraj’s motion on
that basis. On remand, additur should be limited to Sukraj’s past pain and
suffering for his shoulder injury.
Sukraj had suffered past pain and suffering for the injuries to his neck and
back and would experience future pain and suffering as a result of the accident
was disputed at trial, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Sukraj’s motion on
that basis. On remand, additur should be limited to Sukraj’s past pain and
suffering for his shoulder injury.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part;
remanded with instructions. (KELLY and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.)
remanded with instructions. (KELLY and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.)
* * *