Galamaga v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Galamaga v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance

892 So. 2d 1124, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 18168, 2004 WL 2726059

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 1, 2004

DocketNo. 3D03-1889

StatusPublished

This text of 892 So. 2d 1124 (Galamaga v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance) 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

Galamaga v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance, 892 So. 2d 1124, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 18168, 2004 WL 2726059 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

In a motor vehicle accident-personal injury case the plaintiff won a jury verdict in his favor which, among other things, awarded damages for future medical expenses but none for future pain and suffering. He then alternatively moved for an additur or new trial pursuant to sections 768.043(1) and 768.74, Florida Statutes (2002). The trial judge granted an additur for future pain and suffering of $7,500.00 which the defendant accepted, but from which the plaintiff has taken this appeal.

We find it unnecessary to resolve the alleged conflict between Brant v. Dollar Rent A Car Systems, Inc., 869 So.2d 767 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) and Beyer v. Leonard, 711 So.2d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), as to whether the plaintiff, who arguably actually received and therefore invited the ruling on appeal may now object to that order. See Behar v. Southeast Banks Trust Co., 374 So.2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 379 So.2d 202 (Fla.1980); 3 Fla. Jur.2d Appellate Review § 287 (2004). This is because, on the facts of this case, the plaintiff can demonstrate no harmful error or abuse of discretion in the amount of the additur and the ensuing ultimate result. See Delva v. Value Rent-A-Car, 693 So.2d 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); K Mart Corp. v. Bracho, 776 So.2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Indeed, the plaintiff could likely not have secured reversal had the trial judge denied his post trial motion altogether and let the verdict stand. All[1125]*1125state Ins. Co. v. Manasse, 707 So.2d 1110 (Fla.1998).

Affirmed.

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

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

In a motor vehicle accident-personal injury case the plaintiff won a jury verdict in his favor which, among other things, awarded damages for future medical expenses but none for future pain and suffering. He then alternatively moved for an additur or new trial pursuant to sections 768.043(1) and 768.74, Florida Statutes (2002). The trial judge granted an additur for future pain and suffering of $7,500.00 which the defendant accepted, but from which the plaintiff has taken this appeal.

We find it unnecessary to resolve the alleged conflict between Brant v. Dollar Rent A Car Systems, Inc., 869 So.2d 767 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) and Beyer v. Leonard, 711 So.2d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), as to whether the plaintiff, who arguably actually received and therefore invited the ruling on appeal may now object to that order. See Behar v. Southeast Banks Trust Co., 374 So.2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 379 So.2d 202 (Fla.1980); 3 Fla. Jur.2d Appellate Review § 287 (2004). This is because, on the facts of this case, the plaintiff can demonstrate no harmful error or abuse of discretion in the amount of the additur and the ensuing ultimate result. See Delva v. Value Rent-A-Car, 693 So.2d 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); K Mart Corp. v. Bracho, 776 So.2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Indeed, the plaintiff could likely not have secured reversal had the trial judge denied his post trial motion altogether and let the verdict stand. All[1125]*1125state Ins. Co. v. Manasse, 707 So.2d 1110 (Fla.1998).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

892 So. 2d 1124, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 18168, 2004 WL 2726059, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/galamaga-v-liberty-mutual-fire-insurance-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack