CORNELIA PAGANO AND WILLIAM PAGANO, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
MORRISON'S TEXTILES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND ALBERT FREDERICK HODGES, 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.
In this automobile accident personal injury case, the appellants appealed a jury verdict that awarded $2,000 to the plaintiff wife for injuries but nothing to the plaintiff husband for loss of consortium and medical expenses. The court affirmed the judgment, finding the verdicts consistent and not warranting a new trial.
The trial court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial. The verdicts were not inconsistent because the husband did not establish that he had paid or incurred any medical expenses, and the jury was entitled to conclude that his loss of consortium claim was unsustained.
“In the cited cases, retrial was granted when the jury returned a verdict in favor of a wife and made no award to the husband where the evidence showed the husband to be entitled' to receive some amount for medical expenses. In the instant case, the wife sought to recover for the medical expenses. The husband was not present at the trial.”
Distinguishes prior cases and explains why retrial is not warranted here because the wife, not the husband, claimed the medical expenses.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMrs. Pagano was injured when her automobile was struck in the rear by a vehicle owned by Morrison's Textiles, Inc. and driven by Albert F. Hodges. Mrs…
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 New Trial On Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiffs appeal from a judgment entered in a damage action arising out of an automobile accident. Mrs. Pagano was injured when her automobile was struck in the rear by one owned by the corporate defendant, Morrison’s Textiles, Inc., and driven by the individual defendant, Albert F. Hodges. In her complaint, Mrs. Pagano sought compensation for personal injuries, medical expenses, and damage to her automobile. Her husband joined in the action. He sought damages for loss of consortium and for medical expenses allegedly incurred by him in connection with the treatment of his wife. Summary judgment was entered against the defendants on liability. The issues relating to damages were tried before a jury which awarded $2,000 to the plaintiff wife but nothing to the husband.
Plaintiffs’ contention on appeal is that the court erred in refusing to grant a new trial on damages. We agree with the learned trial judge that a new trial was not indicated on this record, and the judgment will be affirmed.
The cases of Noll v. Byorick, Fla.App.1959, 108 So.2d 67, and Thieneman v. Cameron, Fla.App.1961, 126 So.2d 170, cited to us by the appellants, are distinguishable from the instant case. In the cited cases, retrial was granted when the jury returned a verdict in favor of a wife and made no award to the husband where the evidence showed the husband to be entitled' to receive some amount for medical expenses. In the instant case, the wife sought to recover for the medical expenses. The husband was not present at the trial. In his *898deposition, which was read into evidence, he did not claim to have paid or incurred any of the medical expenses. On the contrary, when asked whether the medical bills had been paid, the husband said “Well, that matter I left her take care of,” and he said that she had always paid her own bills.1 Also, the jury was entitled to conclude that the husband’s allegation of loss of consortium was not sustained.
Under the circumstances of this case, the verdicts were not shown to be inconsistent. When motion for new trial was presented to the experienced trial judge, he found no reason to disturb the verdicts.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Raydel, Ltd. v. Medcalfe, 162 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…Canada, which was proved to be Mrs. Medcalfe’s domicile, she is primarily liable for her own medical bills. The ruling of the trial judge is in accord with the holding of this court as expressed in Pagano v. Morrison’s Textiles, Inc., Fla.App.1963, 149 So. 2d 897. Having considered each of appellant’s points and being convinced that no reversible error has been made to appear, the judgment is affirmed. Affirmed. . Section 320.59 F.S.A. provides: “No person transported by the owner or operator of a motor…
-
Cano v. Ezequiel Trujillo, 342 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Pagano v. Morrison’s Testiles, Inc., 149 So. 2d 897 (Fla.3d DCA 1963).…
-
Marqueen A. Schlarbaum and Charles Schlarbaum v. Temple Emanu-El, 372 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Saucer v. City of West Palm Beach, 155 Fla. 659, 21 So. 2d 452 (1945); Pagano v. Morrison’s Textiles, Inc., 149 So. 2d 897 (Fla.3d DCA 1963), and Causeway Marina, Inc. v. Mandel, 276 So. 2d 71 (Fla.3d DCA 1973).…
Authorities Cited
- Noll v. Byorick, 108 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Ione G. Thieneman and F. Ruley Thieneman v. Iverson Cameron, Jr., 126 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)