CHARLES SAPORITO AND JUDITH SAPORITO, HUSBAND AND WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
T. TALMADGE BONE, 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.
The Saporitos, as plaintiffs, obtained a jury verdict for negligence injuries but appealed after the trial court denied their motion for a new trial based solely on damages. The appellate court affirmed, rejecting claims that jury instructions on damages certainty were erroneous.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion for new trial, holding that the challenged jury instruction on the certainty of damages was not erroneous. The instruction correctly distinguished between proof of the fact that damage occurred (which requires certainty) and the amount of damages (which need not be proved with mathematical precision).
“a person is not permitted to recover any element of damages * * * unless such person has proved the particular result for which compensation is claimed with reasonable certainty”
The jury instruction on damages that appellants claimed was erroneous; the court upheld this language as correctly stating the law regarding proof of the fact of damage.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Saporitos suffered injuries from the defendant Bone's negligence. A jury found liability and awarded damages, but the plaintiffs were dissatisfied…
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 Reasonable Certainty In Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants as plaintiffs recovered a jury verdict for injuries resulting from defendant’s negligence but, dissatisfied with the amount of the award, moved for a new trial •on the issue of damages alone, and appeal from the trial court’s denial.
Error is claimed in the instruction of the jury that “a person is not permitted to recover any element of damages * * * unless such person has proved the particular result for which compensation is claimed with reasonable certainty; in other words, a person is not entitled to recover for any disability resulting from an accident unless such disability has been proved with reasonable certainty, nor is a person entitled to recover for any pain or other symptom unless such has been established with reasonable certainty.”
It is conceded that the Court had earlier fully charged, in time-honored language, the burden of proof by a fair preponderance of the evidence, adequately defining the phrase. The challenged language was utilized just prior to an instruction that Plaintiffs “are not entitled to recover speculative, or conjectural damages, nor for damages not shown by the evidence.”
As we read the challenged remarks, they refer to the fact of damage as opposed to the amount or extent. The rule of certainty is applicable to the former. The learned Trial Judge clearly stated the law as to the amount with particular emphasis upon the impossibility of certainty in equating money with pain, etc. See 9 Florida Jur. p. 362; Damages, §§ 15, 16 and 17.
Our test of preponderance of the evidence is qualitative more than qualitative. The phrase necessarily implies that' the evidence must “satisfy the mind of the jury” such as to “lead a reasonably cautious man to that conclusion”; “produce a reasonable belief” and “convince as of its truth.” See Wigmore on Evidence, 3rd edition, § 2498; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Alverson, 95 Fla. 73, 116 So. 30; Escambia County Electric Light & Power Co. v. Sutherland, 61 Fla. 167, 55 So. 83, at page 92. The Trial Court ruled that although the challenged charge “in and of itself may be objectionable, nevertheless the charges taken as a whole are fair and did *246not mislead the jury.” We have reviewed them all, and agree.
The remaining points urged by Appellant are found to be without merit.
Affirmed.
ALLEN, C. J., and PIERCE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Asgrow-Kilgore Co. v. Mulford Hickerson Corp., 301 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 1974)…maging negligent act must be shown with some reasonable certainty and not be based solely upon speculation in order to invoke the rule of recovery for all damages where damages canpot be separated as to the several definite causes. Saporito v. Bone, 195 So. 2d 244 (Fla.App.2d 1967). In its auxiliary findings the trial court sub judice cited plaintiff’s failure to establish the “nature and extent” of the money damages by the greater weight of the evidence. The nature of the damage was essential to any recover…
-
Lynch v. Fla. Mining & Materials Corp., 384 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…his testimony. The expert, however, could not say that removal of the roof was required, and no other testimony indicated any need to remove the roof. Hence, this element of damage is not supported by the evidence and cannot stand. Saporito v. Bone, 195 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). Stevco’s expert did testify that it would cost $1,531.80 to square the building, $555.60 to correct deficiencies with the doors, $1,207.50 to properly secure the roof panels, $508.80 to install rollers on doors, and $354.20 to co…
-
Mulford Hickerson Corp. v. Asgrow-Kilgore Co., 282 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…damages is uncertain, such uncertainty does not necessarily preclude recovery. The uncertainty which defeats recovery has reference to the cause of damage rather than to the amount of it. . ” 2 (Emphasis added.) See Saporito v. Bone, Fla.App.1967, 195 So. 2d 244. The majority’s misconception of this distinction is further evidence of its reliance on Wm. G. Roe & Co. v. Armour & Co., supra. There, the Fifth Circuit was concerned primarily with a determination of the amount of damages rather than the cause o…
Authorities Cited
- The Escambia Cnty. Elec. Light & Power Co. v. Sutherland, 61 Fla. 167 (Fla. 1911)
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Lollie V. Alverson, 95 Fla. 73 (Fla. 1928)