CLARENCE FAULK, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, ERNESTINE THOMAS, AND ERNESTINE THOMAS, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
GARY WAYNE SCHAFER ET AL., 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.
This case involves an appeal by a minor plaintiff whose awarded damages were deemed inadequate, and a cross-appeal by the defendants regarding a new trial granted for the minor's mother. The appellate court affirmed the denial of a new trial for the minor, finding the award not shockingly inadequate, but affirmed the grant of a new trial for the mother due to an inconsistent verdict.
1. No, the $1,000 verdict for the minor plaintiff was not inadequate because the jury could have reasonably concluded, based on the evidence of complete recovery and no permanent injury, that this amount fairly compensated him. 2. Yes, the trial court was correct in granting a new trial on damages for the plaintiff mother because the verdict of $0 was inconsistent with the jury's award to the minor and failed to consider all elements of damages as instructed.
[1] A jury verdict awarding damages for a minor's injuries will not be disturbed on appeal if the amount awarded is not so inadequate as to shock the judicial conscience and…
[2] A new trial on damages may be granted when a jury verdict for a plaintiff is contrary to the law instructed, fails to consider all elements of damages, or is inconsistent…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“In view of the medical testimony which the jury was entitled to believe that complete recovery from the injuries had been made, with no permanent injury, the amount awarded to the plaintiff cannot be said to be inadequate such as to shock the judicial conscience, or to be other than that which could be fixed by a jury of reasonable men upon consideration of the evidence as to the applicable elements of damage relating to the claim of the minor plaintiff.”
Reasoning for affirming the denial of a new trial for the minor plaintiff, stating the award was not legally inadequate.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA minor, Clarence Faulk, was injured in a bicycle-vehicle collision. His mother, Ernestine Thomas, sued for damages for his injuries and for derivativ…
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 Derivative Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
CARROLL, Judge.
The appellant Clarence Faulk, a minor, through his mother as next friend and natural guardian, filed an action against the defendants for damages for personal injuries. His mother joined, seeking recovery of derivative damages for medical expenses and loss of services.
The injuries of the minor were received in a collision between a bicycle upon which he was riding and a motor vehicle alleged to be owned by the defendant Fisherman’s Paradise, Inc., being driven with its knowl edge and consent by the defendant Gary Wayne Schafer. The motor vehicle owner’s liability insurer also was made a defendant.
The minor’s injuries included fracture of a bone or bones in both of his legs. He was taken by ambulance to a hospital, where he was treated and remained for three days. Evidence was presented at the trial that the hospital and doctors’ charges therefor amounted to $542.
The case was tried before a jury, on issues of negligence and contributory negligence. In the jury charges given by the court the jury was informed as to the claims of the two plaintiffs as follows:
“The issues for your determination are for the claim of Clarence Faulk, a minor, by and through his mother, next friend, and natural guardian, Ernestine Thomas, and Ernestine Thomas, individually, are whether the defendant, Gary Wayne Schafer, was negligent in and if so, whether such negligence was the legal cause of injury or damage sustained by Clarence Faulk, by and through his mother and next best friend.”
The portion of the court’s charges dealing with damages was as follows:
“If you find for the defendants, you will not consider the matter of damages. But, if the evidence proves negligence which is the legal cause of injury to the plaintiffs and for which the plaintiffs— the defendants are responsible, you should award the plaintiffs an amount of money that the greater weight of the evidence shows will fairly and adequately compensate him for such injury. You may take into consideration the following elements:
“Any bodily injury sustained by Clarence Faulk and any resulting pain, suffering, disability, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life. There is no exact standard for fixing the compensation to be awarded on account of such elements of damage. Any such award should be fair and just in the light of the evidence.
“You may take into consideration the reasonable value for expenses of medical care and treatment necessarily or reasonably obtained by the plaintiff Ernestine Thomas on behalf of her minor child.”
The jury returned a verdict in which they found for the minor plaintiff Clarence Faulk in the amount of $1,000, and found for the plaintiff Ernestine Thomas in the amount of “None dollars.” The plaintiffs moved for a new trial on several grounds, including that the verdict for the minor plaintiff was inadequate and that the verdict for the plaintiff Ernestine Thomas was contrary to law and not in accordance with the charges. The court denied the motion for new trial as to the minor plaintiff, and granted a new trial on damages for the plaintiff Ernestine Thomas. As grounds for the latter ruling the order stated:
“Plaintiffs’ Motion for New Trial on the issue of damages of Ernestine Thomas, mother of minor Plaintiff, be and the same is hereby granted on the grounds that the verdict in her favor is contrary to the law instructed to the jury; is a failure by the jury to consider all elements of damages; and is defective because of the inconsistency of the verdict with the verdict of the minor Plaintiff.”
The minor plaintiff appealed from the order denying his motion for a new trial, and contends the damages awarded to him were inadequate. The defendants cross-assigned as error the order granting a new trial on damages to the plaintiff Ernestine Thomas.
No reason in law has been shown to disturb the ruling of the trial court denying the minor plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. In view of the medical testimony which the jury was entitled to believe that complete recovery from the injuries had been made, with no permanent injury, the amount awarded to the plaintiff cannot be said to be inadequate such as to shock the judicial conscience, or to be other than that which could be fixed by a jury of reasonable men upon consideration of the evidence as to the applicable elements of damage relating to the claim of the minor plaintiff.
The ruling of the court granting a new trial on damages to the plaintiff Ernestine Thomas is affirmed on authority of Loftin v. Anderson, Fla.1953, 66 So. 2d 470, 473, opinion on rehearing; Thieneman v. Cameron, Fla.App.1961, 126 So. 2d 170; Fejer v. Whitehall Laboratories, Inc., Fla. App.1966, 182 So. 2d 438.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cowart v. Kendall United Methodist Church & Atl. Mut. Ins. Co., 476 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…quacy in the light of the evidence of the ease raised, as here, only by an appropriate (and required) motion for new trial on these grounds. Short v. Grossman, 245 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1971); Griffis v. Hill, 230 So. 2d 143 (Fla.1969); Faulk v. Schafer, 288 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Hancock v. Smith, 248 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Pickel v. Rosen, 214 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). See generally Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Jackson, 433 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Considering the point directly at issue, i…
-
C.G. Chase Constr. Co. v. Ada Beatriz Hernandez Colon, 725 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…d at 290 n. 2. On the other hand, a challenge to an inadequate verdict only requires a motion for a new trial. See Short v. Grossman, 245 So. 2d 217 (Fla.1971); Griffis v. Hill, 230 So. 2d 143 (Fla.1969); Cowart, 476 So. 2d at 289; Faulk v. Schafer, 288 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Here, the trial court correctly recognized that the jury’s verdict was both inconsistent and inadequate. In other words, as noted by this Court in Delva, it logically follows that most inconsistent verdicts would, in some respec…
Authorities Cited
- Loftin v. Anderson, 66 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 1953)
- Ione G. Thieneman and F. Ruley Thieneman v. Iverson Cameron, Jr., 126 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Gabriele Fejer and Stefan Fejer v. Whitehall Labs., Inc., 182 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)