GENERAL RENT-A-CAR, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND ANTHONY LOCASTRO, APPELLANTS,
v.
EDWIN J. DAHLMAN AND FRANDA DAHLMAN, HIS WIFE, 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.
General Rent-A-Car, Inc. and its driver Anthony Locastro appealed a jury verdict awarding Edwin J. Dahlman $5,500 in damages for injuries sustained when Locastro's vehicle struck Dahlman's vehicle from behind. The Florida appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding the award reasonably supported by the evidence and not excessive.
The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the jury's award bears a reasonable relationship to the amount of damages proved and the injury sustained, and therefore should not be disturbed on appeal. The appellants failed to establish that the verdict was wholly unsupported by evidence or the result of passion, prejudice, or improper motive.
[1] A jury verdict in a personal injury action will be affirmed on appeal if it bears a reasonable relationship to the damages proved and the injury sustained.
[2] The burden is on the party challenging a jury verdict as excessive to demonstrate that the award is wholly unsupported by the evidence or resulted from passion, prejudice…
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“Appellants, contending that the verdict is excessive, have the burden of establishing that the verdict is wholly unsupported by the evidence or is the result of passion, prejudice or other improper motive.”
Establishes the legal standard and burden of proof for appellants challenging a jury verdict as excessive.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWhile operating his vehicle, plaintiff Edwin J. Dahlman was struck from behind by a vehicle owned by General Rent-A-Car, Inc. and driven by Anthony Lo…
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 Passion And Prejudice cases and more on FLexlaw
[*416] PER CURIAM.
Defendant-appellants seek review of a final judgment entered in favor of plaintiff pursuant to a jury verdict and an order denying defendants’ motion for new trial or remittitur. Plaintiff-appellee Edwin J. Dahlman, while operating his vehicle was struck from behind by a vehicle which was owned by the defendant-appellant General Rent-A-Car, Inc. and driven at the time by defendant-appellant Anthony Locastro. As a result thereof, plaintiff sustained physical injuries and filed a complaint for damages against the defendants. The cause proceeded to a jury trial at which conflicting testimony was presented as to the extent of plaintiff’s injuries. At the conclusion thereof, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $5,500 and the trial judge entered judgment thereon. Thereafter, defendants moved for a new trial or remittitur on the grounds that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence and so excessive as to shock the conscience of the court. The trial judge denied this motion and this appeal ensued. We affirm.
Appellants, contending that the verdict is excessive, have the burden of establishing that the verdict is wholly unsupported by the evidence or is the result of passion, prejudice or other improper motive. Bartholf v. Baker, Fla.1954, 71 So. 2d 480. Moreoever, the fact that a damage award may appear rather large under the circumstances does not in itself render it excessive nor does it indicate that the jury was motivated by improper considerations in arriving at the award. Florida Power & Light Company v. Robinson, Fla.1953, 68 So. 2d 406.
After a close scrutiny of the record on appeal, we conclude that the jury’s award bears some reasonable relationship to the amount of damages proved and the injury sustained and, therefore, we will not disturb it on appeal. See Florida Power & Light Company, supra. For in personal injury actions, it is not always absolutely possible to determine with complete assurance what may constitute the fair and just compensation to which the injured party is entitled; each case must be considered on its own facts since in most instances there is an element of speculation without the exactitude of a measuring yardstick. Allred v. Chittenden Pool Supply, Inc., Fla.1974, 298 So. 2d 361.
Accordingly, the judgment and order herein appealed are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cardenas v. Miami-Dade Yellow CAB Co., 538 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…his kind often results in traumatic arthritis in the ankle. In sum, based on the record before us, the negligence award of $387,-000 was not excessive. See Erickson v. Liestner, 324 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); General Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Dahlman, 310 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Accordingly, we affirm the verdict as to negligence damages, but we remand for a new trial on the amount of damages to which Daniel Cardenas is entitled for false imprisonment. PART II The Cardenas Appeal A. Punitive Damages…
Authorities Cited
- Bartholf v. Baker, 71 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 1954)
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Robinson, 68 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1953)
- Rolande Allred v. Chittenden Pool Supply, Inc., 298 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 1974)