Maximum Recovery Rule

27 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Caldarera v. E. Airlines, Inc.
  705 F.2d 778· 5th Cir.· 1983-05-27 ·cited 119×
  The court held that while the jury's damage awards were excessive, the trial court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial based on improper closing arguments or the exclusion of remarriage evidence. The court ordered a new trial unless plaintiffs accepted remittiturs to spe
• Mrs. Christine Keyes v. Lauga
  635 F.2d 330· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-26 ·cited 74×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit rebuttal witnesses and that the jury instructions and interrogatories were sufficient. However, the damages awarded were excessive.
• Gorsalitz v. Olin Mathieson Chem. Corp.
  456 F.2d 180· 5th Cir.· 1972-02-04 ·cited 58×
  The court held that while the trial judge correctly determined a remittitur was necessary, a minor error in calculating lost wages required an upward adjustment to the judgment.
• Spesco, Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co.
  719 F.2d 233· 7th Cir.· 1983-09-23 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the jury verdict was supported by sufficient evidence and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony, denying a continuance, refusing a jury instruction, or in its rulings on damages.
• In re AIR Crash Disaster AT NEW Orleans v. PAN Am. World Airways
  795 F.2d 1230· 5th Cir.· 1986-08-06 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the evidence supporting the loss of inheritance damages was too speculative and that the general damage award was excessive, requiring a new trial.
• Hansen v. Johns-Manville Prods. Corp.
  734 F.2d 1036· 5th Cir.· 1984-06-11 ·cited 48×
  The court affirmed liability but remanded for a remittitur or new trial on damages, finding some awards excessive and rejecting several of the defendant's arguments regarding evidence and legal defenses.
• Hernandez v. M/V Rajaan
  841 F.2d 582· 5th Cir.· 1988-03-30 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the vessel owner was liable for the longshoreman's injuries due to actual knowledge of a malfunctioning winch and the stevedore's inability to remedy it. Certain damage awards were found excessive and subject to remittitur or a new trial.
• Clois Osburn and Anita Osburn v. Anchor Labs., Inc.
  825 F.2d 908· 5th Cir.· 1987-08-28 ·cited 42×
  The court held that federal law did not preempt the Osburns' state tort claims, the learned intermediary doctrine did not apply, and the jury's causation findings were supported by sufficient evidence. However, the court found the damages award excessive and ordered a remittitur.
• In re AIR Crash Disaster Near NEW Orleans v. PAN Am. World Airways, Inc.
  767 F.2d 1151· 5th Cir.· 1985-08-12 ·cited 29×
  The court held that while some damage awards were excessive and reversed them, others were affirmed, and a new trial was granted on specific claims unless a remittitur was accepted.
• Delos Jenkins v. Aquatic Contractors & Eng'rs
  446 F.2d 520· 5th Cir.· 1971-07-19 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the plaintiff was a seaman as a matter of law, affirming summary judgment on that issue, but remanded for reconsideration of the jury's damages award.
• Masinter v. Tenneco OIL Co.
  867 F.2d 892· 5th Cir.· 1989-03-16 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA), as applied through the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), provided the exclusive remedy for the plaintiff's injuries, and that the vessel owner's duty of care under LHWCA § 5(b) was not negate
• Warren v. Ford Motor Credit Co. & Larry Diefenderfer
  693 F.2d 1373· 11th Cir.· 1982-12-27 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the repossession and sale of the automobile constituted conversion because the contract was not in default and the plaintiffs, as owners, were not given proper notice of the sale. The punitive damages award was excessive and conditionally remitted.
• Jackson v. Magnolia Brokerage Co.
  742 F.2d 1305· 11th Cir.· 1984-09-27 ·cited 20×
  The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of motions for a new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, finding the jury's award was not excessive and liability was properly determined.
• Zeno v. The Great Atl. & Pac. TEA Co.
  803 F.2d 178· 5th Cir.· 1986-10-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the jury's award of general damages was excessive and disproportionate to the plaintiff's injuries.
• Gumbs v. Pueblo Int'l, Inc.
  823 F.2d 768· 3d Cir.· 1987-07-17 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the denial of judgment notwithstanding the verdict on liability but found the remitted damages award still excessive, ordering a new trial on damages unless the plaintiff accepts a further remittitur.
• Seidman v. Am. Airlines, Inc.
  923 F.2d 1134· 5th Cir.· 1991-02-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, but it did err in not reducing the damage award sufficiently, requiring a further remittitur.
• Gleason v. Hall
  555 F.2d 514· 5th Cir.· 1977-07-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a remittitur, and the amount remaining after the remittitur reflected the maximum award the jury could have reasonably made based on the evidence.
• Veterans Auto Sales & Leasing Co., Inc. v. Poole
  649 So. 2d 264· Fla. 5th DCA· 1994-12-30 ·cited 6×
  The Fifth District Court of Appeal addressed whether a trial court properly exercised its discretion to grant additur (increase a jury verdict) in a wrongful death case. The court held that while additur was permissible for certain economic damages, the trial court abused its dis
• Marchant v. The Dayton Tire & Rubber Co.
  836 F.2d 695· 1st Cir.· 1988-01-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the jury's verdict for the plaintiff on breach of warranty claims (design defect and failure to warn) should be reinstated, but the damages award was excessive and subject to a remittitur.
• Gautreaux v. Ins. Co. OF N. Am. & McDermott Inc.
  811 F.2d 908· 5th Cir.· 1987-03-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the jury's findings on negligence and contributory negligence were supported by evidence, the total damages award was excessive due to an unsupported calculation of future lost wages, requiring a new trial on damages.
• Enter. Ref. Co. v. Sector Ref., Inc.
  781 F.2d 1116· 5th Cir.· 1986-02-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the jury's damage award was not supported by the record and ordered a new trial on damages unless the plaintiff accepted a remittitur to the maximum amount supported by the evidence.
• Herdman v. Erwin J. Smith
  707 F.2d 839· 5th Cir.· 1983-06-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting portions of an affidavit for the prescription issue and that the award was not excessive.
• Rodolfo Gutierrez and Estella v. Gutierrez
  764 F.2d 399· 5th Cir.· 1985-07-01 ·cited 5×
  The court held that Exxon owed a duty to warn the independent contractor's employees of a dangerous condition it knew or should have known existed, and that the jury's findings of negligence and damages were supported by the evidence.
• Brunnemann v. Terra Int'l, Inc.
  975 F.2d 175· 5th Cir.· 1992-10-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while reinstatement was proper, the jury's award of compensatory damages was excessive and required remittitur or a new trial on damages. The negligent infliction of emotional distress claim was dismissed as not recognized under Texas law.
• Wellborn v. Sears
  970 F.2d 1420· 5th Cir.· 1992-08-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence supported the jury's finding of no contributory negligence and that the plaintiff's claims were not barred by the statute of limitations. The court also found that the decedent qualified as a consumer under the DTPA and that the jury awards were n
• Markland v. Norfolk Dredging Co.
  772 F. Supp. 1241· M.D. Fla.· 1991-07-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the jury's award for pain and suffering was excessive and ordered a remittitur, denying a new trial conditioned on the plaintiff's acceptance of a reduced award.
• Douglass v. DELTA AIR Lines, Inc.
  897 F.2d 1336· 5th Cir.· 1990-04-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in calculating lost inheritance by failing to account for the beneficiaries' ability to earn a return on assets, and that the awards for loss of society and companionship for the minor children were excessive under Texas law.