ROBERT J. GALAMAGA, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
Plaintiff who won a jury verdict for future medical expenses but not future pain and suffering appealed an additur of $7,500 for future pain and suffering, but the court affirmed because plaintiff demonstrated no harmful error or abuse of discretion in the additur amount.
A trial court's grant of an additur for future pain and suffering is affirmed when the plaintiff demonstrates no harmful error or abuse of discretion in the amount awarded.
[1] A plaintiff who obtains an additur for future pain and suffering cannot appeal and overturn that additur absent a showing of harmful error or abuse of discretion by the t…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a motor vehicle accident-personal injury case, the plaintiff obtained a jury verdict awarding damages for future medical expenses but none for futu…
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 Future Pain And Suffering cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
In a motor vehicle accident-personal injury case the plaintiff won a jury verdict in his favor which, among other things, awarded damages for future medical expenses but none for future pain and suffering. He then alternatively moved for an additur or new trial pursuant to sections 768.043(1) and 768.74, Florida Statutes (2002). The trial judge granted an additur for future pain and suffering of $7,500.00 which the defendant accepted, but from which the plaintiff has taken this appeal.
We find it unnecessary to resolve the alleged conflict between Brant v. Dollar Rent A Car Systems, Inc., 869 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) and Beyer v. Leonard, 711 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), as to whether the plaintiff, who arguably actually received and therefore invited the ruling on appeal may now object to that order. See Behar v. Southeast Banks Trust Co., 374 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 379 So. 2d 202 (Fla.1980); 3 Fla. Jur.2d Appellate Review § 287 (2004). This is because, on the facts of this case, the plaintiff can demonstrate no harmful error or abuse of discretion in the amount of the additur and the ensuing ultimate result. See Delva v. Value Rent-A-Car, 693 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); K Mart Corp. v. Bracho, 776 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Indeed, the plaintiff could likely not have secured reversal had the trial judge denied his post trial motion altogether and let the verdict stand. All state Ins. Co. v. Manasse, 707 So. 2d 1110 (Fla.1998).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Myrda Manasse, 707 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 1998)
- Behar v. Se. Banks Tr. Co., 374 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Delva v. Value Rent-A-Car, 693 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Kmart Corp. v. Bracho, 776 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Beyer v. Leonard, 711 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Coca-Cola Bottling Co. & Constitution State Serv. Co. v. Perdue, 869 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Brant v. Dollar Rent A CAR Sys., Inc., 869 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)