124 So. 3d 988
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Plaintiffs Carmen Hernandez and Carmen Feliz were rear-ended by Alexis Gonzalez (driver) in a vehicle owned by Linda Gonzalez; both were taken by ambulance and later sought medical care.
- Defendants admitted negligence but disputed causation and damages; they presented evidence of Hernandez’s preexisting conditions and challenged Feliz’s injury claims.
- At trial, plaintiffs presented medical testimony supporting causation; defense experts contradicted those opinions and questioned plaintiff candor and causation.
- The agreed verdict form asked whether defendants’ negligence was the legal cause of loss, injury, or damage to each plaintiff; counsel for plaintiffs urged the jury to answer "no" on causation if the jury believed plaintiffs were not injured (an all-or-nothing argument).
- The jury returned a zero-damage verdict (found negligence was not the legal cause of plaintiffs’ injuries). Plaintiffs’ motions for new trial, arguing the verdict was against the manifest weight of evidence and that certain medical expenses were recoverable as a matter of law, were denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the zero verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence on causation | Plaintiffs argued evidence (including medical experts) showed accident caused their injuries | Defendants argued credible evidence (preexisting conditions, inconsistencies, lay testimony) supported rejection of causation | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; causation was disputed and jury could reject plaintiffs’ proof |
| Whether plaintiffs were entitled as a matter of law to recover emergency/diagnostic medical expenses despite zero verdict on causation | Plaintiffs relied on rule allowing recovery for reasonable diagnostic/exam expenses even if accident not proven to cause injury | Defendants pointed to trial evidence (preexisting conditions, lack of candor, conflicting experts) creating exception allowing jury to award zero | Denied — exception applied; evidence supported zero verdict and jury could disallow such expenses |
| Whether plaintiffs waived entitlement to certain damages by failing to move for directed verdict | Plaintiffs argued they should still recover diagnostic/ER costs despite no directed verdict motion | Defendants noted plaintiffs never moved for directed verdict and explicitly left damages all-or-nothing to jury | Held plaintiffs waived the issue by not moving for directed verdict and by submitting damages to jurors’ all-or-nothing decision |
| Whether plaintiffs preserved objection to verdict form/instructions that led to zero award | Plaintiffs contended verdict form produced improper result as to recoverable medical expenses | Defendants noted plaintiffs agreed to the verdict form and did not object | Held waived — failure to object to verdict form/instructions prevents reversal; counsel invited the result |
Key Cases Cited
- Izquierdo v. Gyroscope, Inc., 946 So.2d 115 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (standard of review for denial of new trial: abuse of discretion)
- Sparks-Book v. Sports Auth., Inc., 699 So.2d 767 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (plaintiff must prove nexus between defendant’s conduct and claimed damages; diagnostic expenses may be recoverable)
- Pack v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 119 So.3d 1284 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (reaffirmed rule that reasonable diagnostic testing costs may be recoverable even if jury finds no causation, but exceptions exist)
- Plana v. Sainz, 990 So.2d 554 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (failure to object to verdict form waives challenge to zero damage award)
- Martin v. Chapman, 780 So.2d 929 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (plaintiff who invites all-or-nothing jury decision and fails to move for directed verdict cannot complain of zero award)
- Easkold v. Rhodes, 614 So.2d 495 (Fla. 1993) (jury may disregard medical expert testimony when plaintiff gave materially untruthful medical history)
- Wald v. Grainger, 64 So.3d 1201 (Fla. 2011) (jury may reject expert medical testimony based on incomplete or inaccurate history)
- Gupton v. Village Key & Saw Shop, 656 So.2d 475 (Fla. 1995) (doctrine of invited error: a party cannot invite error at trial and then complain on appeal)