Renee Hill, etc. v. New Horizons of the Treasure Coast, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Renee Hill, etc. v. New Horizons of the Treasure Coast, Inc.

151 So. 3d 47, 2014 WL 5615262

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 5, 2014

Docket4D12-4309

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 151 So. 3d 47 (Renee Hill, etc. v. New Horizons of the Treasure Coast, Inc.) 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

Renee Hill, etc. v. New Horizons of the Treasure Coast, Inc., 151 So. 3d 47, 2014 WL 5615262 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On the plaintiffs appeal, we affirm the trial court’s order granting the defendant’s motion for new trial. See, e.g., Intramed, Inc. v. Guider, 93 So.3d 503, 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“The closing argument shifted the focus of the case from compensating the plaintiff to punishing the defendant.... The purpose of damages here was to compensate, not to make the defendant care, ‘take responsibility,’ or say it was sorry. Counsel’s arguments improperly suggested that the defendant should be punished for contesting damages at trial and that its defense of the claim in court was improper. The closing argument was designed to inflame the emotions of the jury rather than prompt a logical analysis of the evidence in light of the applicable law.”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

On the defendant’s cross-appeal, we affirm without discussion the trial court’s order denying the defendant’s motion for directed verdict. We also affirm without discussion the trial court’s orders admitting the evidence which became the subject of the defendant’s motion for directed verdict.

Because we affirm the trial court’s order granting the defendant’s motion for new trial, we do not review in this appeal the trial court’s orders granting the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment, denying the plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment, and granting the defendant’s motion for remittitur. All of those orders reflect the trial court’s determination that the non-economic damages cap contained in section 394.9085(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2010), applied to all three counts which the plaintiff pled in this case. As the parties properly conceded at oral argument, our review of that determination will not become ripe unless the plaintiff, at the new trial, obtains a jury verdict which exceeds the non-economic damages cap contained in section 394.9085(1)(b).

Affirmed in part and remanded for new trial.

GERBER, LEVINE and' KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

On the plaintiffs appeal, we affirm the trial court’s order granting the defendant’s motion for new trial. See, e.g., Intramed, Inc. v. Guider, 93 So.3d 503, 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“The closing argument shifted the focus of the case from compensating the plaintiff to punishing the defendant.... The purpose of damages here was to compensate, not to make the defendant care, ‘take responsibility,’ or say it was sorry. Counsel’s arguments improperly suggested that the defendant should be punished for contesting damages at trial and that its defense of the claim in court was improper. The closing argument was designed to inflame the emotions of the jury rather than prompt a logical analysis of the evidence in light of the applicable law.”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

On the defendant’s cross-appeal, we affirm without discussion the trial court’s order denying the defendant’s motion for directed verdict. We also affirm without discussion the trial court’s orders admitting the evidence which became the subject of the defendant’s motion for directed verdict.

Because we affirm the trial court’s order granting the defendant’s motion for new trial, we do not review in this appeal the trial court’s orders granting the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment, denying the plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment, and granting the defendant’s motion for remittitur. All of those orders reflect the trial court’s determination that the non-economic damages cap contained in section 394.9085(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2010), applied to all three counts which the plaintiff pled in this case. As the parties properly conceded at oral argument, our review of that determination will not become ripe unless the plaintiff, at the new trial, obtains a jury verdict which exceeds the non-economic damages cap contained in section 394.9085(1)(b).

Affirmed in part and remanded for new trial.

GERBER, LEVINE and' KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 So. 3d 47, 2014 WL 5615262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/renee-hill-etc-v-new-horizons-of-the-treasure-coast-inc-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack