Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Habegger v. Harper

Habegger v. Harper

689 So. 2d 283, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 10937, 1996 WL 600385
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedOctober 22, 1996
DocketNo. 95-4344
StatusPublished

This text of 689 So. 2d 283 (Habegger v. Harper) 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
Habegger v. Harper, 689 So. 2d 283, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 10937, 1996 WL 600385 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We find that a reasonable jury could have returned a verdict of $13,000 for future pain and suffering, and therefore, the trial court’s order granting additur as to this element of damages was in error. Airstar v. Gubbins, 668 So.2d 311 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); see also Dyes v. Spick, 606 So.2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). We reverse that portion of the final judgment with instructions to reinstate the jury verdict for future pain and suffering. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

BOOTH, WOLF and BENTON, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Dyes v. Spick
606 So. 2d 700 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Airstar, Inc. v. Gubbins
668 So. 2d 311 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
689 So. 2d 283, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 10937, 1996 WL 600385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/habegger-v-harper-fladistctapp-1996.