ARTIE JAMES FRAZIER, APPELLANT,
v.
JONAS C. MERRICKS, 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.
In a motor vehicle accident case, the trial judge granted a new trial because the jury's verdict awarded only property damages ($316.31) and no damages for the plaintiff's claimed whiplash injury. The appellate court reversed, holding that the jury's verdict was reasonable and that the trial judge improperly shifted the burden of proof to the defendant by requiring direct contradiction of the plaintiff's injury testimony.
The appellate court reversed the new trial order, holding that the jury's verdict awarding zero damages for the non-objectively verifiable whiplash injury was reasonable and consistent with controlling precedent, and that the trial judge improperly shifted the burden of proof to the defendant by requiring direct contradiction of the plaintiff's testimony.
[1] A jury's verdict awarding property damages but no pain and suffering damages is permissible when the injury is not objectively verifiable and the jury disbelieves the pla…
[2] A trial judge may not grant a new trial based on a finding that the verdict was a compromise when the jury's decision is within the bounds of reason.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The legal effect of the trial judge's order, emphasizing contradiction, is to remove the burden of proof from the plaintiff and place it upon the defendant.”
Establishes that the trial judge improperly shifted the burden of proof by requiring direct contradiction of plaintiff's testimony
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMerricks was injured in a motor vehicle accident involving Frazier's vehicle. The jury awarded $316.31 for damage to Merricks' station wagon but no da…
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 Jury Verdict Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
The jury’s verdict was for $316.31, precisely the amount of damage to Merricks’ station wagon. No damages were awarded on account of pain and suffering. Mer-ricks claimed a whiplash injury. Medical testimony about personal injury is grounded on Merricks’ complaints, and the injury is not objectively verifiable, nor can it be conclusively disproved.
The trial judge granted a new trial, with the following explanation given to counsel in a letter, which was appended to the order granting a new trial:
“I have reviewed the authorities cited and have asked the court reporter to read back the testimony at trial in search for contradiction of the Plaintiff’s testimony that he was injured. Dr. Wassell testified that on his March 7 examination of the Plaintiff he ‘couldn’t find anything wrong with him’. However, on cross examination he admitted that soft tissue damage is difficult to find, implying that injury could have occurred on the date of the accident without being demonstrable on March 7, 1972.
“In short, I find no direct contradiction of Plaintiff’s testimony that he was injured. Accordingly, the jury’s verdict which was obviously a compromise should have included the medical expens*37es of the Plaintiff. For this reason, the verdict was improper and the Plaintiff is entitled to a new trial.”
There is no finding that the jury was improperly influenced by factors which the record would not disclose nor does the record itself show that the verdict is one which could not be found by reasonable jurors.1 The treating physician had detected, three years before the accident, some slight arthritic symptoms. X-rays were normal before and after. A medical witness for defendant said that he could find nothing wrong with Merricks, and associated objectively verifiable muscle spasm with the typical whiplash injury. Merricks felt fine immediately after the accident. His wife took him that night to the hospital, where he was given medication for pain and a cervical collar. Six days later he consulted a physician.
Injury was a jury question. The legal effect of the trial judge’s order, emphasizing contradiction, is to remove the burden of proof from the plaintiff and place it upon the defendant. The verdict for zero damages for whiplash not objectively verifiable is consistent with Boeck v. Diem2 and Tejón v. Broome,3 in which we collected the authorities. The defendant is not obliged to adduce evidence “directly contradicting” the plaintiff’s own testimony. The jurors were not beyond the bounds of reason when they disbelieved the plaintiff’s testimony of pain and suffering, just as they would have been justified in believing it and evaluating it within reason.
Reversed and remanded for entry of judgment on the verdict.
HOBSON, A. C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cohen v. Margoa, Inc., 309 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 1975)…2d 669; Price v. Jordan, Fla.App.1959, 115 So. 2d 444; Laskey v. Smith, Fla.1970, 239 So. 2d 13; Hodge v. Jacksonville Terminal Company, Fla.1970, 234 So. 2d 645; Stopko v. Farrington, Fla.App. 1970, 235 So. 2d 28; Frazier v. Merricks, Fla.App.1972, 271 So. 2d 36, and Willard v. Bowen, Fla.App. 1974, 294 So. 2d 696. It is my opinion the District Court decision conflicts with the rationale of the cited cases as hereinafter explained. It appears from the District Court’s reported opinion that: “The plaintif…
-
Bush v. Trans World Airlines, 312 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…e also Price v. Jordan, Fla.App.1959, 115 So. 2d 444; Laskey v. Smith, Fla.1970, 239 So. 2d 13; Stopko v. Farrington, Fla.App. 1970, 235 So. 2d 28; Hodge v. Jacksonville Terminal Company, Fla. 1970, 234 So. 2d 645; Frazier v. Merricks, Fla.App.1972, 271 So. 2d 36; Willard v. Bowen, Fla.App. 1974, 294 So. 2d 696; Nunberg v. Brodsky, Fla.App. 1969, 224 So. 2d 727. Interestingly, although the motion seeking a new trial alleged among other things that the verdict as to liability and damages was “contrary to the…
Authorities Cited
- Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1959)
- Laskey v. Smith, 239 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1970)
- Hodge v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 234 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 1970)
- Boeck v. Diem, 245 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)
- Brigida Tejon and Victor Castro v. Mary R. Broome and her husband, 261 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)