Volusia County v. Joynt
179 So. 3d 448
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- In July 2011 Erin Joynt was severely injured when a Volusia County Beach Patrol truck ran over her; she sued the County for negligence.
- After a four-day trial the jury awarded $2.6 million: $2,000,000 for past and future pain and suffering, $500,000 for diminished earning capacity, and $100,000 for future medical expenses. The County appealed only the future economic damage awards.
- At the time of the accident Joynt was voluntarily unemployed; she later returned to work as a full‑time reading intervention paraeducator earning about $18,000/year and had good evaluations.
- Medical evidence showed lingering left‑ear hearing loss, left facial paralysis (gold weight implanted in eyelid), chronic upper back and chest pain, and various specialists testified about possible future treatments (hearing aid, possible further ear surgery, pain management), but testimony often characterized future interventions as possible rather than probable.
- Little or no testimony quantified the likely cost or frequency of future treatments; Joynt also testified she preferred to avoid further surgery and currently spends roughly $80/month on medications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported award for future diminished earning capacity | Joynt argued injuries would likely impair her ability to remain employed as a paraeducator through retirement; jury could infer lost capacity and quantify award | County argued there was no proof Joynt's earning capacity was diminished or any basis to calculate future loss (she returned to work and performed well) | Reversed — no reasonable evidence to support diminished earning capacity award; submission to jury was speculative |
| Whether evidence supported award for future medical expenses | Joynt relied on doctors' testimony that certain treatments (hearing aid, possible ear surgery, ongoing specialist visits, pain meds) might be needed in future | County argued future treatments were speculative, no evidence costs or frequency, and some doctors only opined possibility not probability | Reversed — future medical expense award not supported; insufficient proof of reasonable certainty or basis to quantify costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Benitez v. Joseph Trucking, 68 So.3d 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (directed‑verdict standard: grant when no reasonable evidence supports verdict)
- Etheredge v. Walt Disney World Co., 999 So.2d 669 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (same standard cited)
- Seibert v. Riccucci, 84 So.3d 1086 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (appellate review is de novo)
- W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn. v. Pyke, 661 So.2d 1301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (future earning‑capacity damages recoverable only when established with reasonable certainty and quantifiable)
- Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Tompkins, 651 So.2d 89 (Fla. 1995) (future economic damages require reasonable certainty)
- Loftin v. Wilson, 67 So.2d 185 (Fla. 1953) (future medical expenses recoverable only if reasonably certain to be incurred and reasonably estimable)
- DeAlmeida v. Graham, 524 So.2d 666 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (past bills alone insufficient to let jury compute future medical costs)
- Nevarez v. Friskney, 817 So.2d 856 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (speculative future treatment and lack of cost evidence defeat recovery for future medical expenses)
- Sea Fasani v. Kowalski, 43 So.3d 805 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (plaintiff must prove future medical expenses are more likely than not and quantifiable)