MARGARET WEST AND JULIAN WEST, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
FOOD FAIR STORES, INC., AND HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, 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.
Margaret West appealed a jury verdict in her favor in a slip-and-fall case, arguing the verdict was inadequate and she was prejudiced by the trial court's denial of a motion to compel production of witness statements. The appellate court affirmed, finding the verdict adequate under the reasonable jury standard and any error in denying the discovery motion to be harmless.
The verdict was not clearly and grossly inadequate because a jury of reasonable persons could have attributed Margaret West's injuries to her pre-existing congenital condition rather than the fall. Any error in denying the motion to compel was harmless because the plaintiffs obtained depositions from two relevant employees anyway, the jury found Food Fair liable despite their testimony, and the statements would have had limited value given they were taken years after the accident.
[1] A jury verdict is not grossly inadequate if a jury of reasonable persons could have returned that verdict.
[2] A jury may attribute a plaintiff's pain and suffering to a pre-existing congenital condition, even if the plaintiff also suffered an injury from an accident.
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“The test to be applied in determining the adequacy of a verdict is whether a jury of reasonable men could have returned that verdict.”
Establishes the legal standard for reviewing jury verdict adequacy on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMargaret West slipped and fell in a Food Fair Store, sustaining back injuries requiring two unsuccessful operations and resulting in 40% permanent dis…
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 Prejudice In Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiffs appeal a final judgment entered in their favor pursuant to a jury verdict in a slip and fall case.
The plaintiff, Margaret West, slipped and fell in a Food Fair Store, thereby sustaining injuries to her back. Evidence adduced at the trial showed that she was caused to undergo two back operations, neither of which was successful, that she has a 40 per cent permanent disability and that she suffered from a congenital spine problem prior to the fall. The jury re turned a verdict of $25,000.00 for Margaret West, $10,000.00 for Julian West, and found Margaret to have been 50 per cent negligent. The verdict was reduced by that percentage and judgment was so entered.
On appeal, the plaintiffs contend that the court erred in failing to grant a new trial (1) because the verdict in favor of Margaret West was so grossly inadequate as to shock the conscience of the court, and (2) because the plaintiffs were prejudiced by the court’s earlier denial of a motion to compel production of statements taken by the defendants.
The test to be applied in determining the adequacy of a verdict is whether a jury of reasonable men could have returned that verdict. Griffis v. Hill, Fla.1970, 230 So. 2d 143; Crutcher Resources Corporation v. Rayner, Fla.App.1973, 283 So. 2d 392. Our review of the record and the evidence before the trial court indicates that the jury could have attributed Margaret West’s pain and suffering to her congenital condition, and it cannot be said that the jurors as reasonable men could not have reached the verdict they did. Crutch-er Resources Corporation v. Rayner, supra. We are, therefore, unable to find the verdict of the jury clearly and grossly inadequate.
As to the plaintiffs’ second point on appeal, the court denied the plaintiffs’ pretrial motion to produce statements taken by defendants from Food Fair employees. However, the plaintiffs did take the depositions of two of them, and at trial, the jury found Food Fair liable and rendered verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs despite the trial testimony of these employees. The plaintiffs contend that since the depositions were not taken until three years after the accident, the statements would aid the witnesses’ recollections as to matters unable to be recalled. The defendants argue that the statements themselves were not taken until one or two years after the accident, and therefore, they would not be of great value in this capacity anyway. We further note that the testimony of the plaintiff herself, Margaret West, showed that she demonstrated conduct which the jury could find to be negligent, i. e., she was carrying a young, child, a package and a wallet while reaching for an item on a shelf.
Assuming arguendo there is error, failure to show prejudice or harm renders it harmless error pursuant to § 59.041, Fla. Stat. See Dierickx v. Wisehart, Fla.App.1967, 195 So. 2d 614.
Therefore, we conclude that no reversible error has been demonstrated and this cause hereby is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Walker v. The City OF Miami, 337 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…er, the amount of the verdict rests with the jury and will not be set aside as being inadequate unless the inadequacy clearly appears or the record reveals prejudice or sympathy as a basis for the verdict. See West v. Food Fair Stores, Fla.App.1974, 305 So. 2d 280. We recognize that a joinder of two plaintiffs for the trial of their separate damages would not ordinarily be made where the separate damages were the only issues to be tried. In the present case, where no mention of separate trials was made on the…
-
Erickson v. Liestner, 324 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…dical expenses allegedly incurred by her as a result of the collision. The test to be applied in determining the adequacy of a verdict is whether a jury of reasonable persons could have returned the verdict. West v. Food Fair Stores, Fla.App. 1974, 305 So. 2d 280; Cobb v. City of Miami, Fla.App. 1971, 254 So. 2d 376. This test is simply stated but may be difficult to apply in a particular case. In the instant appeal, the record shows that in 1964 appellant sustained injuries involving the same parts of her…
-
The Cricket Club, Inc. v. Basso, 384 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…ery through written interrogatories, production of such documents as medical bills and a compulsory physical examination, we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of the Club’s request to depose Ms. Basso. Compare West v. Food Fair Stores, Inc., 305 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Thus, this point lacks merit. Affirmed. . The Club participated in the trial. . See Stevenson v. Arnold, 250 So. 2d 270 (Fla.1971).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Griffis v. Hill, 230 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 1969)
- Sperling v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 283 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Dierickx v. Wisehart, 195 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- VAN Voorhis v. Gutman, 195 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)