Peterson v. Sun State International Trucks, LLC
56 So. 3d 840
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Mrs. Peterson was rear-ended in Nov. 2006 by a Sun State truck; injuries included neck/back pain and seat/frame damage, vehicle declared a total loss.
- Sun State admitted liability but contested whether injuries were permanent, suggesting preexisting conditions and a deer-collision later affected her.
- Trial occurred June 2008; jury found Mrs. Peterson had a permanent injury and awarded her medical and noneconomic damages but awarded Mr. Peterson zero for loss of consortium.
- Petersons moved for a new trial on Mr. Peterson’s loss-of-consortium claim; the trial court denied it, citing disputed evidence and lack of link to the accident.
- The Second District reversed in part, holding there was substantial undisputed evidence of adverse effects on the marital relationship and remanded for a new trial limited to Mr. Peterson’s loss-of-consortium damages.
- Dissent by Black argued the record contained disputed evidence and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mr. Peterson is entitled to nominal damages when undisputed evidence shows impact on the marriage. | Peterson presented substantial, undisputed evidence of adverse marital impact. | Sun State argues the evidence is disputed and damages should be zero. | Yes; new trial limited to damages on loss of consortium. |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion denying a new trial given undisputed consortium impact. | Peterson contends undisputed evidence warranted nominal damages. | Sun State contends evidence was disputed and a new trial not warranted. | Abuse of discretion; reversal and remand for new trial on damages. |
| Whether the attribution of loss-of-consortium effects to the accident was supported by the record. | Evidence ties marital deterioration to the accident. | Some evidence could be linked to other causes; not automatic entitlement. | Record supports attribution to the accident; remand appropriate. |
| Whether the jury could consider evidence about non-sexual aspects of consortium. | consortium includes companionship, support, and household duties. | Defense argued some evidence was weak or disputed. | Record supports considering broader consortium factors; nominal damages warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gates v. Foley, 247 So.2d 40 (Fla. 1971) (definition of loss of consortium and its scope)
- Albritton v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 382 So.2d 1267 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (test for new trial when undisputed impact on marital life exists)
- Lofley v. Insultech, Inc., 527 So.2d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (undisputed substantial impact requires nominal damages check)
- Big Lots Stores, Inc. v. Diaz, 18 So.3d 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (evidence sufficient to require nominal damages where undisputed impact exists)
- Tavakoly v. Fiddlers Green Ranch of Fla., Inc., 998 So.2d 1183 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (integration of undisputed evidence requiring nominal damages)
- Jones v. Double D Props., Inc., 901 So.2d 929 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (undisputed evidence of impact supports nominal damages)