John Caddell Construction Co. v. Mendez

District Court of Appeal of Florida

John Caddell Construction Co. v. Mendez

742 So. 2d 425, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 12196, 1999 WL 729041

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 13, 1999

DocketNo. 98-3031

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 742 So. 2d 425 (John Caddell Construction Co. v. Mendez) 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

John Caddell Construction Co. v. Mendez, 742 So. 2d 425, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 12196, 1999 WL 729041 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Kim Mendez (plaintiff) was injured in an automobile collision with Edward Cain, who was employed by John Caddell Construction Company. She sued Cain and Caddell Construction (defendants) for injuries caused when her silicone breast implants ruptured during the collision. . Following a verdict for the plaintiff (which was reduced by her comparative negligence), the defendants sought to amend the verdict by requesting setoffs for the plaintiffs previously-received PIP benefits ($10,000) and for a prior settlement in the plaintiffs class action suit against the implant manufacturer ($50,000).

With the instruction given here, the jury could have deducted the $10,000 in PIP benefits from the future medical damages portion of the award. Thus, the two-issue rule mandates our affirming the verdict. See Odom v. Carney, 625 So.2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). The trial court’s denial of the defendants’ request for a $10,000 setoff was proper.

Additionally, the trial court properly denied a setoff based on the $50,000 settlement the plaintiff had received pursuant to a class action suit. The class action defendant and the instant defendants were not joint tortfeasors, and the damages (injuries) claimed in the two cases were not the same; thus, in our view, a setoff under section 768.041(2), Florida Statutes, was not appropriate. See, e.g., Lauth By and Through Gadansky v. Olsten Home Healthcare, Inc., 678 So.2d 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).

Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the defendants’ request for these setoffs, and affirm the verdict below.

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Kim Mendez (plaintiff) was injured in an automobile collision with Edward Cain, who was employed by John Caddell Construction Company. She sued Cain and Caddell Construction (defendants) for injuries caused when her silicone breast implants ruptured during the collision. . Following a verdict for the plaintiff (which was reduced by her comparative negligence), the defendants sought to amend the verdict by requesting setoffs for the plaintiffs previously-received PIP benefits ($10,000) and for a prior settlement in the plaintiffs class action suit against the implant manufacturer ($50,000).

With the instruction given here, the jury could have deducted the $10,000 in PIP benefits from the future medical damages portion of the award. Thus, the two-issue rule mandates our affirming the verdict. See Odom v. Carney, 625 So.2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). The trial court’s denial of the defendants’ request for a $10,000 setoff was proper.

Additionally, the trial court properly denied a setoff based on the $50,000 settlement the plaintiff had received pursuant to a class action suit. The class action defendant and the instant defendants were not joint tortfeasors, and the damages (injuries) claimed in the two cases were not the same; thus, in our view, a setoff under section 768.041(2), Florida Statutes, was not appropriate. See, e.g., Lauth By and Through Gadansky v. Olsten Home Healthcare, Inc., 678 So.2d 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).

Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the defendants’ request for these setoffs, and affirm the verdict below.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

742 So. 2d 425, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 12196, 1999 WL 729041, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-caddell-construction-co-v-mendez-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack