JOHN CADDELL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND EDWARD H. CAIN, APPELLANTS,
v.
KIM VEGA MENDEZ, APPELLEE
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.
The court held that the trial court properly denied setoffs for PIP benefits and a prior class action settlement, affirming the verdict.
Plaintiff was injured in a car collision and sued the driver and his employer. Following a verdict for the plaintiff, reduced for comparative negligen…
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 Two Issue Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. Kim Mendez (plaintiff) was injured in an automobile collision with Edward Cain, who was employed by John Caddell Construction Company. She sued Cain and Caddell Construction (defendants) for injuries caused when her silicone breast implants ruptured during the collision. . Following a verdict for the plaintiff (which was reduced by her comparative negligence), the defendants sought to amend the verdict by requesting setoffs for the plaintiffs previously-received PIP benefits ($10,000) and for a prior settlement in the plaintiffs class action suit against the implant manufacturer ($50,000).
With the instruction given here, the jury could have deducted the $10,000 in PIP benefits from the future medical damages portion of the award. Thus, the two-issue rule mandates our affirming the verdict. See Odom v. Carney, 625 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). The trial court’s denial of the defendants’ request for a $10,000 setoff was proper. Additionally, the trial court properly denied a setoff based on the $50,000 settlement the plaintiff had received pursuant to a class action suit. The class action defendant and the instant defendants were not joint tortfeasors, and the damages (injuries) claimed in the two cases were not the same; thus, in our view, a setoff under section 768.041(2), Florida Statutes, was not appropriate. See, e.g., Lauth By and Through Gadansky v. Olsten Home Healthcare, Inc., 678 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).
Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the defendants’ request for these setoffs, and affirm the verdict below.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Palm Springs Gen. Hosp., Inc. v. Amauri Valdes, M.D., 784 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…ten Home Healthcare, Inc., 678 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Designs for Vision, Inc. v. Amedas, Inc., 632 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Vroom, 480 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); compare John Caddell Constr. Co. v. Mendez, 742 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). We therefore affirm the judgment entered below in all respects. JORGENSON, J., concurs. . The medical staff year runs from May 1 through April 30. . See J. Sternberg, S. Schulman & Assocs., M.D., P.A. v. Hospital Corp. of Ame…
Authorities Cited
- Odom v. Carney, 625 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Lauth v. Olsten Home Healthcare, Inc., 678 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)