Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

April 6, 2017 by admin

Torts — Damages — Future pain and suffering — Refusal to accept remittitur of damages awarded by jury — New trial

42
Fla. L. Weekly D749e
Top of Form

Torts
— 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.

(PER
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.

I
would reverse the order granting a new trial and remand to the trial court to
reinstate the jury verdict.

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982