Civil Litigation
Please select a topic from the drop down list
Total Damages Cases: 35
Milton v. Reyes
22 So. 3d 624 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2009) (October)
2009-10-07
DAMAGES
The defendant appealed a judgment for the plaintiff. The district court limited its reversal to the
fact that the jury was not given Florida Standard Jury Instruction 6.10, which instructs the jury to reduce future economic damages to present value. The plaintiff also cross appealed, challenging the trial court’s denial of attorney’s fees. The district court affirmed this ruling,
holding that his proposal for settlement did not include a certificate of service as required by
the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.442.
Read More
The district court reversed the trial court’s award of prejudgment interest on the lost profits the plaintiff sustained as a result of the defendants’ unauthorized use of his likeness. The district court discussed a history of Florida case law on this issue which shows that such prejudgment interest is not warranted in lost profits or price-erosion damages cases because the amount of damages is usually unknown.
Read More
The trial court erroneously adopted two competing methods of measuring property damage. Generally, damages for the wrongful injury of property are measured either by the diminution in the value of the property, referred to as the diminution in value rule, or by the costs of repairing or restoring the property to its condition prior to the injury, referred to as the restoration rule.If the cost of repairs or restoration is less than the diminution in value, then the law requires that damages be measured by the costs of repairs or restoration. If the cost of repairs or restoration exceeds the diminution in value or if repairing or restoring the property is impracticable, then the law requires that damages be measured by the diminution in value. Restricting the costs of repairs or restoration to the diminution in value is a means to prevent plaintiffs from being overcompensated or from receiving overlapping recovery. The trial court should have adopted only the cost of repairs as the measure of damages. The cost of repairs did not exceed the diminution in value and there was no evidence that repairing the appellees' property was impracticable.
Read More
A retailer sued a cruise line, alleging tortious interference with a contract or business relationship and seeking lost profits as damages. The trial court found that the retailer had not proved actual damages, but awarded it nominal and punitive damages. The cruise line appealed. The retailer had a contract with the county to operate a duty-free shop at a port for cruise passengers. The cruise line's ship also had a duty-free gift shop onboard. The cruise line objected to the retailer's selling duty-free goods to its passengers. When the retailer refused to pay the cruise line a commission, the cruise line precluded the retailer from delivering the duty-free goods to its ship or from allowing its customers to shop at the retailer's store. The county subsequently terminated its contract with the retailer, prompting the retailer to file this suit. The trial court held that retailer failed to meet its burden of proving actual damages because it presented insufficient evidence on that issue. In awarding punitive damages, it found that the cruise line's actions were calculated, predatory and excessive. The appellate court held that such conduct, though unjustified, failed to rise to the degree of reprehensibility required for a punitive damages award. The trial court erred in awarding nominal damages as well, because proof of actual damages was an essential element of a prima facie tortious interference claim, and the trial court found that the retailer failed to prove actual damages. The judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for judgment in favor of the cruise line.
Read More
A plaintiff who files an action against a nursing home for violation of resident
Read More
The general rule in litigation malpractice is that the two-year statute of limitations begins to run when the final judgment is entered. However, in a case where the client had nothing more than an expectancy of cause of action, the statute of limitations did not run until the cause of action accrued and the client knew or should have known.
Read More
Henderson v. Idowu
27 Fla. L. Weekly D2271 (Fla. 4th DCA October 25, 2002)
2002-10-25
DAMAGES
Where a party signed an arbitration agreement with an employer and that agreement covers disputes with the employer and all employees which relate in any way to employment or termination of employment, a former supervisor is considered a third party beneficiary of the agreement because he or she falls into the class of
Read More
Although an order may be labeled
Read More
The Third District Court of Appeals reaffirmed its previous holdings that in negligence actions for slip and fall injuries, a Plaintiff may introduce evidence of the occurrence or nonoccurrence of prior or subsequent accidents to prove constructive notice of the dangerous character of a condition. Constructive notice may be proved by showing the condition occurred with regularity and was foreseeable.
Read More
In order to prove a strict liability claim, a plaintiff must show that there was a product produced by a manufacturer that was defective in that it created an unreasonably dangerous condition that proximately caused the injury in question. Thus, the presumption is that the product was defective at the time of the injury as well as at the time the product was sold when that product "malfunctions during normal operation." Furthermore, the subsequent destruction or disposal of the product, although important, does not bar a claim. Rather, a party can establish entitlement by negating other potential causes of the accident
Read More
Hoffman v. Hall
27 Fla. L. Weekly D1468 (Fla. 1st DCA June 28, 2002)
2002-06-28
DAMAGES
An appeal of a final order must contain unequivocal language of finality. The wording "final summary judgment is hereby entered in favor of" is sufficiently final.
Read More
In Florida, sovereign immunity extends to certain private parties who are involved in contractual relationships with the State, if such parties are agents of the state. Whether such contracted parties are agent of the states is determined by the degree of control retained or exercised by the state agency. Furthermore, workers
Read More
Myron v. Shulman
27 Fla. L. Weekly D1381 (Fla. 4th DCA June 21, 2002)
2002-06-21
DAMAGES
Testimony of a witness whose name is not disclosed in accordance with a pretrial order may be excluded by the trial court. The Fourth District Court of Appeal found that the trial court properly excluded plaintiffs
Read More
The court embraced the holding in Bovis v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 505 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), and held that property owners are not strictly liable or liable per se for injuries resulting from a dangerous condition on their property. Premises liability is not predicated on ownership of the property, but on the failure of the possessor of the property to use due care.
Read More
A plaintiff cannot recover post-verdict interest in a personal injury action for the period between the time of verdict and the judgment. Rather, the proper procedure is to request the court enter a judgment promptly so to limit the amount of time in which interest accrues.
Read More
Trial judges have wide discretion in accepting evidence, and unless an abuse of discretion can be proven, such rulings usually stand. In this case, an insurance company was attempting to introduce evidence that the plaintiff may have been receiving social security benefits as a collateral source. The court did not allow this evidence because it found that it was more than "merely cumulative," and rather, that its probative value would reach beyond the trial testimony. The fact that the plaintiff
Read More
Since the insured would be unable to obtain admission to a hospital for expensive surgical procedures without prior authorization from his or her insurance company, an insurer has the obligation to preauthorize surgery in a situation in which the injury is within the coverage of the medical payments portion of the insurance policy.
Read More
In cases involving equitable estoppel, the burden is on the party raising the claim to prove the three elements by clear and convincing evidence. Reliance cannot be claimed when the party asserting equitable estoppel knows the opposing party is mistaken, even when the opposing party was given notice of the error and failed to correct it. Furthermore, a claim of detrimental change in position cannot be claimed when the only harm was spending money that never should have been received in the first place.
Read More
Employers may not be able to compel employees to have an independent medical examination when employees have only seen doctors who were paid by the employer and employer has access to the medical records. Strong dissent stated that the trial court ruling clearly departed from the
Read More
In a denial of defendant
Read More
An administrative law judge is not to allow parties the opportunity to enter into evidence new exhibits without first allowing the other party adequate time to prepare responses or bring forward other evidence. Such actions unfairly prejudices a party and is therefore grounds for a new hearing.
Read More
The Florida Supreme Court ruled that, contrary to other authority, Florida rules governing the commencement of the statute of limitation period in oral contracts start upon the creditor
Read More
The Florida Supreme Court ruled that, contrary to other authority, Florida rules governing the commencement of the statute of limitation period in oral contracts start upon the creditor
Read More
The court found that a sudden stop by a lead vehicle is insufficient to overcome the presumption of negligence where the sudden stop is at a place where a sudden stop can reasonably be expected. The court found that the facts, viewed in a light most favorable to the appellee, did not show that the appellee rebutted the presumption of negligence.
Read More
The court found that the 1999 amendment to section 768.81, Florida Statutes, limiting joint and several liability, did not apply retroactively to a cause of action which accrued prior to the effective date of the amendment. Furthermore, the court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant additur where the jury
Read More
The court reaffirmed its finding in Saye v. Pieschacon, 750 So. 2d 759, where the award of attorney fees and costs requires an entry of final judgment. Thus, under section 768.79(6) of the Florida Statutes (2001), the entitlement of any possible attorney fees arises only "after the entry of judgment or after voluntary or involuntary dismissal."
Read More
The jury found for Appellant Arena Parking, Inc., but only awarded damages in the amount of $28,500, when the undisputed evidence showed that the damages incurred by Arena Parking and the intervenor, Florida East Coast Railway Co., were $176,864.40. Consequently, the Appellate Court ordered the trial court to grant an additur in the amount of $120,889.57, plus prejudgment interest, which had to be re
Read More
Before a party can assert a claim for punitive damages, the trial court must determine that a reasonable basis for the claim exists.
Read More
It was error to award damages against defendants in favor of individual members of recreation and property owners
Read More
D
26 Fla. L. Weekly S772 (Fla. Nov. 21, 2001)
2001-11-21
DAMAGES
The Florida Supreme Court held that principles of comparative fault with regard to apportionment as to the cause of the underlying crash would not ordinarily apply in crash worthiness or enhanced injury cases. Because a manufacturer alleged to be responsible for a defective product that resulted in a second accident and injury ordinarily may not be held liable for the injuries caused by the initial accident, the fault of the manufacturer may not be compared or apportioned with the fault of the driver of the vehicle who allegedly caused the initial crash.
When appropriate, the defendant manufacturer in a crash worthiness case should be entitled to have the jury instructed that no claim is being made for damages arising out of the initial accident and that the manufacturer should not be held liable for damages caused by the initial condition. Such an instruction would help insure that defendants are not held responsible for damages caused by other factors.
Read More
Welch v. Fega
26 Fla. L. Weekly D2681 (Fla. 4th DCA Nov. 14, 2001)
2001-11-14
DAMAGES
According to the Fourth District Court of Appeals, noneconomic damage awards should be reversed where the jury finds that the plaintiff did not suffer any permanent injury.
Read More
A parent is not entitled to any claim for damages when an adult child incurs personal injuries due to the tortious conduct of another.
Read More
Johnston v. Tueche
26 Fla. L. Weekly D2526 (Fla. 5th DCA Oct. 19, 2001)
2001-10-19
DAMAGES
In this accident case, the medical expenses were $9,557 but the jury only awarded $5,200 for past medical expenses. According to the appellate court, the jury is the sole judge of factual issues, including damages. Although a jury may not arbitrarily award no damages, it may lower a damage award where there is conflicting evidence on the amount of medical expenses which were necessary to treat plaintiff in relation to the accident.
Read More
Based on a provision in a wire transfer agreement, lost deposit damages were precluded in a claim against a bank where a wire transfer did not arrive in time for a real estate closing, thus resulting in the forfeiture of plaintiffs
Read More
Plaintiff, who was injured by a bullet fired from a gun, brought an action against both the owner and the manufacturer of the gun. Plaintiff eventually settled the claim against the manufacturer prior to trial. The court found that the nonsettling defendant was not entitled to a setoff in the amount of the settlement against economic damages awarded in the verdict as no liability was found on the part of the nonsettling defendant. The court held that setoff statutes could not be used in circumstances where a jury finds that a nonsettling defendant is liable for economic damages, but finds that the settling defendant is not liable. According to the court, where a defendant is found to be 100% liable for the plaintiff
Read More
