155 So. 3d 471
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- Plaintiff Jennifer Schwartz sued Wal-Mart after an ornamental pumpkin struck her back while shopping; Wal‑Mart admitted negligence but disputed causation and damages.
- At trial, Schwartz presented evidence of injury and medical treatment; Wal‑Mart presented experts (including a biomedical engineer) testifying the impact could not have caused injury.
- The jury found for Wal‑Mart, answering “No” that Wal‑Mart was the legal cause of any "loss, injury or damage," and returned a zero‑damages verdict.
- The verdict form and jury instructions directed that a "No" to causation ended deliberations; Schwartz did not request a special verdict question on diagnostic medical expenses nor move for a directed verdict on those bills.
- The trial court granted Schwartz a new trial limited to damages for her initial medical evaluations only; Wal‑Mart appealed that order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a new trial on initial diagnostic medical expenses was required despite jury finding no causation | Schwartz: Even if jury found no injury from the incident, she is entitled to recover reasonable medical exam/diagnostic costs incurred to determine if injury occurred | Wal‑Mart: Jury’s finding of no causation is supported by evidence (expert testimony); exceptions permit zero‑damages verdict including diagnostic expenses when evidence shows no causation | Reversed — trial court erred; new trial on initial evaluations not warranted; verdict reinstated |
| Standard of review for legal issues in a new‑trial motion | Schwartz: (implied) deference to trial court’s new trial grant | Wal‑Mart: Court should review legal questions de novo | Court applied de novo review for legal issue and found error in granting new trial |
| Whether exceptions to the rule allowing recovery of diagnostic bills apply | Schwartz: Sparks‑Book rule entitles recovery for diagnostic testing even if no injury proved | Wal‑Mart: Exceptions apply where evidence (e.g., expert opinion) supports that impact could not have caused injury | Court held exceptions applied here due to expert testimony rebutting causation |
| Effect of failure to request special verdict/question or directed verdict on diagnostic expense issue | Schwartz: (did not preserve) but argued entitlement nonetheless | Wal‑Mart: Schwartz failed to preserve issue by not requesting a special verdict question or directed verdict, so she left issue to jury | Court emphasized waiver—failure to request verdict form question or directed verdict precludes relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Estate of Stuckey, 749 So.2d 490 (Fla. 1999) (new‑trial abuse‑of‑discretion standard)
- Van v. Schmidt, 122 So.3d 248 (Fla. 2013) (de novo review when new‑trial motion raises legal issues)
- Kaplan v. Morse, 870 So.2d 934 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (elements of negligence)
- Jordan v. Lamar, 510 So.2d 648 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (plaintiff recovers only for damages caused by defendant’s negligence)
- Jackson Hewitt, Inc. v. Kaman, 100 So.3d 19 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (duty a question of law; breach, causation, damages for trier of fact)
- Sparks‑Book v. Sports Auth., Inc., 699 So.2d 767 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (rule allowing recovery of reasonable diagnostic testing even if no proven injury)
- Hernandez v. Gonzalez, 124 So.3d 988 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (exceptions permitting zero‑damages verdict despite diagnostic expenses when evidence rebuts causation)
- Martin v. Chapman, 780 So.2d 929 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (party who elects to leave an issue to the jury by not moving for directed verdict or special verdict question cannot later complain)