238 So. 2d 129 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 1970
Appellant-plaintiff, by this appeal, contends that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying her motion for new trial as to damages.
On March 11, 1967, plaintiff suffered a sprain of the cervical and lumbo-sacral spine as the result of an automobile collision. The trial judge directed a verdict as to the issue of liability and submitted the issue of damages to the jury, which'returned a verdict of $1,000 for plaintiff and $500 for her husband.
Plaintiff was treated first by general practitioner and then by an orthopedic surgeon. The medical bills amounted to $782.01 plus an estimated $687 for a future varicose vein operation and an additional $30 to $50 doctor’s bill, the aggregate being approximately $1500. If the evidence reflected without contradiction that the outlay of plaintiff’s husband for medical expenses necessitated by the accident will amount to $1500, and the jury only returned $500 for same, we would not hesitate to agree with plaintiff’s contention that a jury of reasonable men
We find in this record competent testimony, which the jury was at liberty to believe, to the effect that not all of plaintiff’s medical expenses and claim of damages were a proximate result of the accident.
As stated in Griffis v. Hill :
“The appellate court must be ever alert against the temptation to substitute its ‘verdict’ for that of the jury. On the other hand, we must not refuse to act to relieve the injustice of either a grossly inadequate or excessive verdict.”
We do not find the instant verdict to be so grossly inadequate as to compel us to substitute our judgment for that of the trial judge or the jury.
Affirmed.
. Plaintiff emphasizes that this matter was considered by a jury composed of six women.
. Griffis V. Hill. 230 So.2cl U3 (Fla.1970).
. Shaw v. Puleo, 159 So.2d 641 (Fla.1964).
. Griffis v. Hill, 230 So.2d 143, 145 (Fla.1970).