ANTHONY ALTAMORE, APPELLANT,
v.
MGIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Anthony Altamore appeals a jury verdict awarding zero damages for injuries sustained from a guard dog bite. The court reverses and remands for a new trial on damages, finding the jury improperly disregarded the trial court's instruction regarding workmen's compensation benefits.
The court reverses the zero-damages verdict and remands for a new trial on damages only, finding that the jury verdict was inadequate as a matter of law because the only reasonable explanation for awarding zero damages was the jury's improper disregard of the collateral source instruction.
[1] A jury's award of zero damages is error when the existence of damages, such as medical expenses, is uncontroverted by evidence.
[2] A trial court should grant a new trial when a jury returns a verdict of zero damages despite uncontroverted evidence of actual damages.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The trial judge entered a verdict for the plaintiff on the issue of liability. The cause was submitted to the jury on damages only.”
Establishes that liability was determined by directed verdict and only damages were submitted to jury.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAltamore was injured by a guard dog while working on a job guarded by the defendants. The trial judge entered a directed verdict for the plaintiff on …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Inadequate Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff appeals from a final judgment on a jury verdict which awarded zero damages. The defendant-appellee concedes that, under the circumstances of this case, the judgment would be error except for the fact that the erroneous verdict was occasioned by error which the plaintiff-appellant himself caused.1
Briefly stated, the facts are as follows: The plaintiff was injured by a guard dog while working on a job that was being guarded by the dog. The control of the dog was that of the defendants. The trial judge entered a verdict for the plaintiff on the issue of liability. The cause was submitted to the jury on damages only. While certain damages were controverted, the existence of a broken arm and medical expenses therefor were not controverted in the evidence. There was evidence introduced by the plaintiff that he had received workmen’s compensation benefits. The trial court instructed the jury that the amount of the workmen’s compensation paid should not be taken into consideration in the amount of their verdict. The single verdict submitted was for the plaintiff with the amount of damages left blank. The jury returned a verdict of zero damages. A motion for new trial on the basis of an inadequate verdict was denied.
We reverse upon authority of the law as set forth in Worley v. Kirkland, 360 So. 2d 447 (Fla.1st DCA 1978). See also Pickel v. Rosen, 214 So. 2d 730 (Fla.3d DCA 1968).
Appellees’ argument that the error was invited is not applicable in view of the fact that the only reasonable explanation of the jury’s action is its disregard of the collateral sources instruction relative to the workmen’s compensation benefits paid.
Having found that the trial court should have granted a new trial on the basis of appellant’s first point, we do not consider further argument in the cause.
Reversed and remanded with directions to grant a new trial on the issue of damages only.
. Appellees restate appellant’s first point on appeal, as follows:
“A jury properly awarded zero damages after there had been a directed verdict on liability and where error, if any, was invited by the plaintiff.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pickel v. Rosen, 214 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Worley v. Kirkland, 360 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)