Peek v. Stevens

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Peek v. Stevens

395 So. 2d 617, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19025

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 25, 1981

DocketNo. 80-341

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 395 So. 2d 617 (Peek v. Stevens) 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

Peek v. Stevens, 395 So. 2d 617, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19025 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

DAUKSCH, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment in a personal injury case where the jury returned a zero verdict and the court denied a motion for new trial. There is a definite controversy as to whether all of the medical expenses which were incurred by plaintiff were incurred as a result of the accident. There is no question that at least the diagnostic medical bills were directly related to the accident. Of course we have no way of knowing why the jury refused to award any amount to the plaintiff. It cannot be on account of lack of liability because the defendant admitted liability and the jury was so instructed. It cannot be because no injuries were proved because, as we said in Ridenour v. Sharek, 388 So.2d 222 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), the plaintiff is entitled to at least his diagnostic medical expenses which are reasonably incurred.

Because the jury was obviously misled or failed to understand that at least a portion of the expenses suffered by the plaintiff should have been paid by the defendant, we must assume it was not fully cognizant of its duty as a jury. We cannot make the determination that the plaintiff is entitled to only the diagnostic medical expenses nor can we assess what the damages should be; so in light of the jury’s failure to award at [618]*618least a portion of the damages it was bound to award, we must require a new trial.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ORFINGER and SHARP, JJ„ concur.

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

DAUKSCH, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment in a personal injury case where the jury returned a zero verdict and the court denied a motion for new trial. There is a definite controversy as to whether all of the medical expenses which were incurred by plaintiff were incurred as a result of the accident. There is no question that at least the diagnostic medical bills were directly related to the accident. Of course we have no way of knowing why the jury refused to award any amount to the plaintiff. It cannot be on account of lack of liability because the defendant admitted liability and the jury was so instructed. It cannot be because no injuries were proved because, as we said in Ridenour v. Sharek, 388 So.2d 222 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), the plaintiff is entitled to at least his diagnostic medical expenses which are reasonably incurred.

Because the jury was obviously misled or failed to understand that at least a portion of the expenses suffered by the plaintiff should have been paid by the defendant, we must assume it was not fully cognizant of its duty as a jury. We cannot make the determination that the plaintiff is entitled to only the diagnostic medical expenses nor can we assess what the damages should be; so in light of the jury’s failure to award at [618]*618least a portion of the damages it was bound to award, we must require a new trial.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ORFINGER and SHARP, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

395 So. 2d 617, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19025, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peek-v-stevens-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack