LITTLE RIVER BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
EDWARD T. MAGOFFIN, A MINOR, BY HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, ANNETTE G. MAGOFFIN, AND ANNETTE G. MAGOFFIN, INDIVIDUALLY, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a jury's damages award in a negligence suit, holding that the award was supported by evidence and not excessive. The court reiterated its standard for reviewing jury verdicts on damages.
Yes, the jury's award of damages was supported by the evidence and was not so excessive as to shock the judicial conscience. Therefore, the verdicts and judgment are affirmed.
“Unless “clearly arbitrary”, Sproule v. Nelson, Fla.1955, 81 So. 2d 478, or “so excessive as to indicate that the jury was influenced by passion, prejudice, corruption, or other improper motive,” Upton v. Hutchison, Fla.1950, 46 So. 2d 20, 21, or “so much greater than it should have been as to shock the judicial conscience,” Bartholf v. Baker, Fla.1954, 71 So. 2d 480, 484, the amount awarded by the jury will not be disturbed on appeal.”
Establishes the standard for appellate review of jury damage awards.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a negligence suit, liability was admitted, and the case proceeded to the jury solely on the issue of damages. The jury returned verdicts and a judg…
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.
This is an appeal by defendant from verdicts and judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered in the lower court in a negligence suit. At the trial, liability was admitted and the cause was submitted to the jury on the question of damages only under instructions not here complained of. Defendant’s only contention on the appeal is that the verdicts were not supported by the evidence.
It has long been the settled rule in this jurisdiction that damages in a personal injury action are for the discretion of the jury. Unless “clearly arbitrary”, Sproule v. Nelson, Fla.1955, 81 So.2d 478, or “so excessive as to indicate that the jury was influenced by passion, prejudice, corruption, or other improper motive,” Upton v. Hutchison, Fla.1950, 46 So.2d 20, 21, or “so much greater than it should have been as to shock the judicial conscience,” Bartholf v. Baker, Fla.1954, 71 So.2d 480, 484, the amount awarded by the jury will not be disturbed on appeal. The burden is on the appellant to establish the fact that the verdict is wholly unsupported by the evidence or was the result of passion, prejudice or other improper motive. Bartholf v. Baker, supra.
The verdict awarding damages to plaintiffs finds support in the evidence, and the amount thereof is not so excessive as to shock the conscience of the court. Accordingly, the judgment appealed from should be and it is hereby
Affirmed.
TERRELL, C. J., and THOMAS, HOB-SON and DREW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bartholf v. Baker, 71 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 1954)
- Sproule v. Nelson, 81 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 1955)
- Upton v. Hutchison, 46 So.2d 20 (Fla. 1950)