65 So. 3d 1185
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Adams, a 19-year-old scooter rider, collided with Saavedra's car in rainy conditions; dispute over who drove or backed out into traffic.
- Evidence included testimony from accident reconstructionists; defendant argued car was turning, plaintiff argued scooter was in or near westbound lane; some witnesses conflicted on timing.
- Plaintiff suffered a right orbit fracture and a comminuted right femur fracture requiring surgeries and extended recovery; migraines developed months after; potential lifelong impact and future medical needs were anticipated.
- Jury found Saavedra negligent and 100% at fault; awards included past medical expenses, past lost earnings, substantial future medical expenses, permanent injury, and pain and suffering (total $640,587.56).
Trial court remitted future medical expenses to $17,000 and reduced intangible damages by 40%; plaintiff objected to remittitur; defendant moved for new trial.
On relinquishment, the trial court issued findings supporting remittitur, which the appellate court found conclusory and unsupported by the record; remittitur deemed an abuse of discretion; case remanded for final judgment consistent with the jury verdict, excluding the stipulated future medical amount with interest from verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether remittitur was proper to reduce damages | Adams contends remittitur was improper and unsupported by the record. | Saavedra contends remittitur was warranted due to excessive damages. | Remittitur was abusive; reversed and remanded for entry of final judgment per the verdict. |
| Whether the relinquishment order properly justified remittitur | Record lacks factual basis for the relinquishment-based remittitur. | Remittitur justified by the court's findings during relinquishment. | Remittitur improper; relinquishment findings insufficient to support remittitur. |
| Whether intangible damages and future medical expenses should be remitted | Intangible damages should stand; only disputed future medical expenses should be adjusted as agreed. | Evidence supported reductions in intangible damages and future medical expenses. | No justification for remitting intangible damages; factual support lacking for reduction. |
| What entry should follow the reversal of remittitur | Judgment should reflect jury verdict excluding the stipulated future medical amount with interest from verdict. | Not explicit here beyond receipt of remittitur issues. | Remand for entry of final judgment in accordance with the jury verdict, excluding the stipulated future medical amount, with interest from verdict. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Calder Race Course, Inc., 492 So.2d 1309 (Fla. 1986) (jury damages should be measured by the jury's discretion in tort cases)
- Hendry v. Zelaya, 841 So.2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (jury awards for non-economic damages given wide latitude)
- Kaine v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 735 So.2d 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (limits on remittitur strength; jury discretion protected)
- Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Robinson, 472 So.2d 722 (Fla. 1985) (trial courts must state reasons justifying remittitur)
- Green v. Rety, 616 So.2d 433 (Fla. 1993) (interest of allowing reasonable damages in final judgment)
- Weinstein Design Grp., Inc. v. Fielder, 884 So.2d 990 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (standard of review for remittitur abuse of discretion)