ARLINE M. VADALA AND ANTHONY VADALA, APPELLANTS,
v.
BRIAN JAY ADAMS 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.
Trial court abused its discretion by granting remittitur where the jury verdict was supported by the record and bore a reasonable relationship to proven damages.
A trial court abuses its discretion by granting remittitur or a new trial based on excessiveness when the record supports the jury award and it bears a reasonable relationship to proven damages.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by granting remittitur when the jury verdict is supported by the record and bears a reasonable relationship to proven damages, even th…
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“if the record supports the award of damages it is an abuse of discretion to set aside the jury award and grant a remittitur or a new trial”
Court's statement of the legal standard governing trial court discretion to grant remittitur
Plaintiffs Arline and Anthony Vadala obtained a jury verdict for damages against defendants Brian Jay Adams and others.…
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 Excessive Jury Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Upon examination’of the record on appeal and consideration of the briefs of the parties we are of the opinion that the trial judge erred in granting defendants’ motion for remittitur or, alternative, motion for new trial based upon a determination that the jury verdict was excessive. While a remittitur or a new trial may be allowed through exercise of sound discretion by the trial judge such as, for example, where a verdict awarding damages is shocking to the judicial conscience, if the record supports the award of damages it is an abuse of discretion to set aside the jury award and grant a remittitur or a new trial. See Allred v. Chittenden Pool Supply, Inc., Fla.1974, 298 So. 2d 361; Clark v. Russo, Fla.App.1961, 133 So. 2d 764; Wise v. Jacksonville Gas Corporation, Fla.App. 1957, 97 So. 2d 704; Bach v. Miami Transit Company, Fla.App.1961, 129 So. 2d 706. Our review of the record reflects sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the award bears a reasonable relationship to the amount of damages proved and the injuries sustained. Accordingly, the order granting defendants’ motion is quashed and the cause remanded to the trial court with instructions to enter a final judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in accordance with the jury verdict.
Reversed and remanded.
WALDEN and MAGER, JJ., and TURNER, WILLIAM ROGERS, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Snyder Oceanography Servs., Inc. v. Miller, 493 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…st be supported by the record, as in Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So. 2d 669, or by findings reasonably amenable to judicial review. Not every verdict which raises a judicial eyebrow should shock the judicial conscience. See also Vadala v. Adams, 301 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). It can be said here that if one would exclude all of the plaintiffs case, then the trial court’s order would be correct. The plaintiff’s case is the flip side of the defendants’, which is the reason for jury trials. The defenda…
Authorities Cited
- Rolande Allred v. Chittenden Pool Supply, Inc., 298 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 1974)
- Wise v. Jacksonville GAS Corp., 97 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957)
- Bach v. Miami Transit Co., 129 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Nolan Clark v. Russo, 133 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)