Barrientos v. Hyre

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Barrientos v. Hyre

805 So. 2d 981, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 16669, 2001 WL 1503277

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 28, 2001

DocketNo. 2D01-1859

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 805 So. 2d 981 (Barrientos v. Hyre) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barrientos v. Hyre, 805 So. 2d 981, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 16669, 2001 WL 1503277 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Reynaldo and Leticia Barrientos appeal an order granting Richard Hyre a new trial in his action for personal injuries resulting from a motor vehicle accident. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a new trial on the issue of comparative negligence. However, we conclude that a new trial on all issues is unwarranted. The trial court correctly directed a verdict on the issue of the defendant’s liability. The permanency of the plaintiffs injury was undisputed at trial. Mr. Hyre has raised no legal challenge to the adequacy of the amount of damages awarded by the jury. That award includes all of his requested eco[982]*982nomic damages and a sizable award for noneconomic damages. The error requiring a new trial affected only the issue of comparative fault, and the new trial must be limited to that issue. See Nash v. Wells Fargo Guard Servs., Inc., 678 So.2d 1262 (Fla.1996). See also Purvis v. Inter-County Tel. & Tel. Co., 173 So.2d 679 (Fla.1965).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and DAVIS and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Reynaldo and Leticia Barrientos appeal an order granting Richard Hyre a new trial in his action for personal injuries resulting from a motor vehicle accident. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a new trial on the issue of comparative negligence. However, we conclude that a new trial on all issues is unwarranted. The trial court correctly directed a verdict on the issue of the defendant’s liability. The permanency of the plaintiffs injury was undisputed at trial. Mr. Hyre has raised no legal challenge to the adequacy of the amount of damages awarded by the jury. That award includes all of his requested eco[982]*982nomic damages and a sizable award for noneconomic damages. The error requiring a new trial affected only the issue of comparative fault, and the new trial must be limited to that issue. See Nash v. Wells Fargo Guard Servs., Inc., 678 So.2d 1262 (Fla.1996). See also Purvis v. Inter-County Tel. & Tel. Co., 173 So.2d 679 (Fla.1965).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and DAVIS and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

805 So. 2d 981, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 16669, 2001 WL 1503277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barrientos-v-hyre-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack