WAL-MART STORES, INC.
v.
DERRICK THORNTON
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.
A trial court abuses its discretion in denying remittitur when the damages awarded for future medical expenses bear no reasonable relationship to the evidence presented.
[1] Damages awarded for future medical expenses must bear a reasonable relationship to the evidence presented; an award that substantially exceeds the maximum amount testifie…
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 intelligence“As the amount of damages awarded for future medical expenses bears no reasonable relationship to the damages proved, we reverse the court's judgment and remand for reconsideration of the motion for remittitur in accordance with section 768.74, Florida Statutes.”
The court's rationale for reversing the trial court's denial of remittitur on the future medical expenses portion of the award.
Derrick Thornton was injured in a slip-and-fall accident at Walmart and recovered a jury verdict for damages. The jury awarded $150,000 for future med…
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 Damages Award cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Marina Garcia-Wood, Judge; L.T. Case No. 12-025217 (18).
Thomas A. Valdez and Karen M. Shimonsky of Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., Tampa, for appellant.
Donna Greenspan Solomon of Solomon Appeals, Mediation & Arbitration, Fort Lauderdale, and Robert C. Rogers, Jr., of Lawrence J. Bohannon P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
KUNTZ, J. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. appeals the trial court’s final judgment after a jury verdict in favor of the Plaintiff for injuries sustained as a result of a slip-and-fall accident. We affirm without comment on all issues raised except Wal-Mart’s argument that the court erred in denying its motion for remittitur. In the motion for remittitur, Wal-Mart argued the damages awarded were against the manifest weight of the evidence. After a careful review of the testimony and evidence, we conclude that, while there was some evidence to support most portions of the award, the trial court should have granted remittitur as to the $150,000 for future medical expenses. The jury awarded the Plaintiff $150,000 even though the Plaintiff’s doctor testified that future medical costs for “a potential future knee replacement surgery” would not exceed $75,000. As the amount of damages awarded for future medical expenses bears
2
no reasonable relationship to the damages proved, we reverse the court’s judgment and remand for reconsideration of the motion for remittitur in accordance with section 768.74, Florida Statutes. The reconsideration must be limited to the portion of the judgment relating only to future medical expenses. The judgment is otherwise affirmed. Affirmed in part, reversed in part. GROSS and FORST, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brinda Coates v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 308 So. 3d 1068 (Fla. 2023)
-
Morgan & Morgan, P. A. v. Rock Pollock, SR. (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)