BAPTIST HEALTH MEDICAL GROUP ORTHOPEDICS, LLC, ETC.
v.
ALFREDO VICTOR FERNANDEZ, ETC.
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.
Charles Jordan, M.D. and Baptist Health Medical Group Orthopedics, LLC appealed a judgment in favor of Alfredo Victor Fernandez, challenging the trial court's denial of their motion for remittitur on non-economic damages. The court affirmed liability but reversed and remanded the remittitur denial, finding the trial court failed to apply the statutory criteria for evaluating excessiveness of damages awards.
The court affirmed the judgment as to liability but reversed the trial court's denial of the remittitur motion, finding that the trial court's failure to consider all five statutory criteria under § 768.74(5) constituted reversible error. The case was remanded for reconsideration of the remittitur motion in accordance with the statutory requirements.
[1] When reviewing a trial court's denial of a remittitur motion, the trial court must consider all five statutory factors enumerated in section 768.74(5), Florida Statutes,…
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“they must do this within the bounds of reason”
A jury's discretion in fixing damages amounts, though broad, is not unbridled and must remain within the bounds of reason.
A judgment was entered in favor of appellee Alfredo Victor Fernandez against appellants Charles Jordan, M.D. and his employer Baptist Health Medical G…
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 Non-Economic Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLER, J.
Appellants, Charles Jordan, M.D. and his employer, Baptist Health Medical Group Orthopedics, LLC, challenge a final judgment rendered in favor of appellee, Alfredo Victor Fernandez. Affirming as to liability, we write only to address the contention the lower tribunal erroneously denied appellants’ motion for remittitur. See Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Spearman, 320 So. 3d 276, 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021); Woodson v. Go, 166 So. 3d 231, 233–34 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015); Blake v. Hi-Lu Corp., 781 So. 2d 1122, 1124 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).
Under Florida law, the amount awarded a plaintiff in non-economic damages rests largely in the discretion of the jury. Sproule v. Nelson, 81 So. 2d 478, 481 (Fla. 1955). This discretion is not, however, unbridled. While “[i]t is for the jury to fix the amount . . . they must do this within the bounds of reason.” Bartholf v. Baker, 71 So. 2d 480, 484 (Fla. 1954) (quoting Virginian Ry. Co. v. Armentrout, 166 F. 2d 400, 408 (4th Cir. 1948)). Thus, awards of damages are “subject to close scrutiny by the courts.” § 768.74(3), Fla. Stat (2021).
To this end, section 768.74, Florida Statutes, authorizes remittitur in cases where the trial court determines an award of damages is “excessive . . . in light of the facts and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact.” In determining whether such an award is inordinate, the trial court is required to consider the following factors:
(a) Whether the amount awarded is indicative of prejudice, passion, or corruption on the part of the trier of fact; (b) Whether it appears that the trier of fact ignored the evidence in reaching a verdict or misconceived the merits of the case relating to the amounts of damages recoverable; (c) Whether the trier of fact took improper elements of damages into account or arrived at the amount of damages by speculation and conjecture; (d) Whether the amount awarded bears a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered; and (e) Whether the amount awarded is supported by the evidence and is such that it could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons.
§ 768.74(5), Fla. Stat. Here, in denying the motion for remittitur, the trial court only considered the quality of the marriage between the decedent and her surviving spouse, Fernandez. While this factor certainly has some relevance to the injury suffered, no consideration was made as to the remaining statutory criteria.
Under our precedent, this procedural oversight constitutes reversible error. See Spearman, 320 So. 3d at 288. Thus, we reverse the judgment and remand for reconsideration of the motion for remittitur in accordance with section 768.74(5), Florida Statutes.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Pilot Radio & Tube Corp. Eckhardt v. Ball, 72 F.2d 316 (1st Cir. 1934)…ay, 173 Mass. 305, 53 N. E. 823, 73 Am. St. Rep. 289; or that there he any consideration moving from the trustee to the cestui. The assent of a cestui is presumed, until renounced, if: the trust be for his benefit. Libby v. Frost et al., 98 Me. 288, 56 A. 906; Devol v. Dye, 123 Ind. 321, 21 N. E. 246, 7 L. R. A. 439. Ft is urged that this was not a trust mortgage because the vendees or grantees were not described as trustees in the granting clause; out there is no merit m this contention since the habend…
Authorities Cited
- Bartholf v. Baker, 71 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 1954)
- Virginian Ry. Co. v. Armentrout, 166 F.2d 400 (4th Cir. 1948)
- Sproule v. Nelson, 81 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 1955)
- C.L. "Pete" Blake v. Hi-Lu Corp., 781 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Woodson v. Darlene GO, M.D., 166 So. 3d 231 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)
- Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Spearman, 320 So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)