157 So. 3d 318
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- Feaster was injured in a four-car collision caused by Zapata, who was driving Buitrago’s truck.
- Jury found Buitrago and Zapata liable and awarded Feaster: past medical $55,819.34; future medical $450,000; lost wages $442.40; past noneconomic $25,000; and $0 for future noneconomic damages.
- Feaster moved for a new trial, arguing that a jury finding of a permanent injury requires an award of future noneconomic damages as a matter of law.
- At the hearing the trial court granted Feaster a new trial on future noneconomic damages, apparently adopting Feaster’s reliance on Allstate v. Manasse.
- The Second District concluded the trial court based its ruling on an incorrect view of the law and abused its discretion by not applying the proper manifest-weight standard.
- The court affirmed other rulings, reversed the grant of a new trial on future noneconomic damages, and remanded for reconsideration under the correct legal principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a jury finding of permanent injury requires an award of future noneconomic damages as a matter of law | Feaster: permanent injury finding automatically entitles plaintiff to future noneconomic damages (relying on Manasse) | Buitrago/Zapata: jury may find permanent injury yet reasonably award $0 for future noneconomic damages; award not legally inadequate per controlling precedent | Court: Rejected automatic-entitlement theory; Manasse (Fla. 4th DCA) was superseded by the Florida Supreme Court’s Manasse decision holding no automatic inadequacy |
| Whether the trial court properly granted a new trial on future noneconomic damages | Feaster: trial court properly granted new trial based on legal entitlement argument | Defendants: trial court erred by applying incorrect legal standard and failing to consider whether the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Court: Trial court abused its discretion by relying on incorrect law; reversed the new-trial grant and remanded for reconsideration under manifest-weight standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Manasse, 707 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 1998) (Florida Supreme Court holds a verdict is not inadequate as a matter of law when jury finds permanent injury but awards no future intangible damages)
- Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1959) (manifest-weight-of-the-evidence is the correct standard for evaluating allegedly inadequate noneconomic damages)
- Tri-Pak Machinery, Inc. v. Hartshorn, 644 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (trial court abuses discretion when its new-trial decision rests on erroneous view of law)
- Van v. Schmidt, 122 So. 3d 243 (Fla. 2013) (when appellate court cannot determine whether trial court would have acted absent legal error, remand for reconsideration is proper)
- Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1978) (orders granting new trials must state grounds; absence of findings can require remand)