Habegger v. Harper
689 So. 2d 283, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 10937, 1996 WL 600385
Opinion
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Habegger v. Harper, 689 So. 2d 283, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 10937, 1996 WL 600385 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).
689 So. 2d 283 (Habegger v. Harper) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
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)