42
Fla. L. Weekly D749eTop of Form
Fla. L. Weekly D749eTop of Form
Torts
— Damages — Future pain and suffering — Refusal to accept remittitur of
damages awarded by jury — New trial
— Damages — Future pain and suffering — Refusal to accept remittitur of
damages awarded by jury — New trial
MARK
G. THOMPSON, Appellant/Cross Appellee, v. ALVARO E. AVILA, Appellee/Cross
Appellant. 5th District. Case No. 5D15-2152. Decision filed March 31, 2017.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Janet C. Thorpe, Judge.
Counsel: Caryn L. Bellus, and Barbara E. Fox, of Kubicki Draper, P.A., Miami,
for Appellant/Cross Appellee. Ramsey Smathers of the Law Offices of Ramsey
Smathers, P.A., Winter Park, Shea T. Moxon, of Brannock & Humphries, Tampa,
and Michael V. Barszcz, of Law Offices of Michael V. Barszcz, M.D., J.D.,
Winter Park, for Appellee/Cross Appellant.
G. THOMPSON, Appellant/Cross Appellee, v. ALVARO E. AVILA, Appellee/Cross
Appellant. 5th District. Case No. 5D15-2152. Decision filed March 31, 2017.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Janet C. Thorpe, Judge.
Counsel: Caryn L. Bellus, and Barbara E. Fox, of Kubicki Draper, P.A., Miami,
for Appellant/Cross Appellee. Ramsey Smathers of the Law Offices of Ramsey
Smathers, P.A., Winter Park, Shea T. Moxon, of Brannock & Humphries, Tampa,
and Michael V. Barszcz, of Law Offices of Michael V. Barszcz, M.D., J.D.,
Winter Park, for Appellee/Cross Appellant.
(PER
CURIAM.) AFFIRMED. (EVANDER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur. JACOBUS, B.W., Senior
Judge, dissents with opinion.)
CURIAM.) AFFIRMED. (EVANDER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur. JACOBUS, B.W., Senior
Judge, dissents with opinion.)
__________________
(JACOBUS,
B.W., Senior Judge, dissenting.) This case is before us on an appeal from a
negligence case in which Appellee, Alvaro Avila, obtained a verdict for $1.9
million. The verdict included $1,330,385.90 for future pain and suffering. The
trial court issued a remittitur of the future pain and suffering damages by reducing
the amount to $250,000. The remittitur was not accepted by either party.
Accordingly, the trial court granted a new trial on the issue of future pain
and suffering damages. The majority affirms the ruling by the order for a new
trial on non-economic damages. I would reverse and remand for reinstatement of
the verdict. The jury heard all the testimony regarding Appellee, Mr. Avila,
and determined that his damages were $1.9 million, including the amount they
found for future pain and suffering. A jury has wide latitude on the
determination of damages. Rety v. Green, 546 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 3d DCA
1989). Unless there is something that influences the jury outside the record,
in my view, this verdict should stand. See Arab Termite & Pest Control,
Inc. v. Jenkins, 409 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 1982). The amount of damages in a
civil case are well within the province of the jury. A verdict is not
necessarily excessive because it is above the amount the court considered a
jury should have allowed. Bould v. Touchette, 349 So. 2d 1181 (Fla.
1977). “The verdict should not be disturbed unless it is so inordinately large
as obviously to exceed the maximum limit of a reasonable range within which the
jury may properly operate.” Id. at 1184.
B.W., Senior Judge, dissenting.) This case is before us on an appeal from a
negligence case in which Appellee, Alvaro Avila, obtained a verdict for $1.9
million. The verdict included $1,330,385.90 for future pain and suffering. The
trial court issued a remittitur of the future pain and suffering damages by reducing
the amount to $250,000. The remittitur was not accepted by either party.
Accordingly, the trial court granted a new trial on the issue of future pain
and suffering damages. The majority affirms the ruling by the order for a new
trial on non-economic damages. I would reverse and remand for reinstatement of
the verdict. The jury heard all the testimony regarding Appellee, Mr. Avila,
and determined that his damages were $1.9 million, including the amount they
found for future pain and suffering. A jury has wide latitude on the
determination of damages. Rety v. Green, 546 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 3d DCA
1989). Unless there is something that influences the jury outside the record,
in my view, this verdict should stand. See Arab Termite & Pest Control,
Inc. v. Jenkins, 409 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 1982). The amount of damages in a
civil case are well within the province of the jury. A verdict is not
necessarily excessive because it is above the amount the court considered a
jury should have allowed. Bould v. Touchette, 349 So. 2d 1181 (Fla.
1977). “The verdict should not be disturbed unless it is so inordinately large
as obviously to exceed the maximum limit of a reasonable range within which the
jury may properly operate.” Id. at 1184.
I
would reverse the order granting a new trial and remand to the trial court to
reinstate the jury verdict.
would reverse the order granting a new trial and remand to the trial court to
reinstate the jury verdict.