Seaboard Coast Line Railroad v. Robinson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Seaboard Coast Line Railroad v. Robinson

263 So. 2d 626, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6653

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 9, 1972

DocketNo. 71-481

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 263 So. 2d 626 (Seaboard Coast Line Railroad v. Robinson) 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

Seaboard Coast Line Railroad v. Robinson, 263 So. 2d 626, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6653 (Fla. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

McNULTY, Judge.

This appeal is taken from a final judgment on a jury verdict awarding $10,000 to the estate of Corrine Simmons in a wrongful death action, brought by her adminis-[627]*627tratrix, as a result of a motor vehicle-train collision.¹ Defendant-appellant appeals the judgment both as to liability and as to the refusal of the trial judge to grant a remit-titur of the damage award. At the outset, we think there was sufficient evidence to raise a jury question as to liability, and find no reason to overturn the jury’s finding in this regard. We must reverse, however, on the question of damages.

The measure of damages under the wrongful death statute, when the administrator (administratrix) brings the action for the estate, is :2

. . the present value of the prospective earnings and savings which the evidence indicates the decedent could reasonably have been expected to have accumulated during his life expectancy after becoming of age and to have left to his heirs or beneficiaries at his death . . . . That which may be considered in measuring the recovery includes evidence of age, probable duration of life, habits of industry, means, business, earnings, health, skill, and reasonable future expectations. . . .”

Here, the decedent was a 64 year old widow with a life expectancy of approximately 13 years. Undisputedly, she was not employed and had no business, skills, earnings or assets other than personal effects. She received minimal social security benefits derived through her deceased husband, and she received occasional gratuitous financial assistance from her niece, the ad-ministratrix herein; but there was no evidence that such income exceeded her day to day needs. Concededly, a showing of probability as to the amount of damages is not required; but the evidence still must afford a reasonable basis for the amount decided upon by the jury.³ Under the evidence presently in this record we can find no reasonable basis for the $10,000 verdict nor, indeed, for any other than a nominal award. We therefore reverse and remand for a new trial solely on the issue of damages or, in the discretion of the trial judge, the granting of an appropriate remittitur.⁴

Reversed.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and SACK, MARTIN, Associate Judge, concur.

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

McNULTY, Judge.

This appeal is taken from a final judgment on a jury verdict awarding $10,000 to the estate of Corrine Simmons in a wrongful death action, brought by her adminis-[627]*627tratrix, as a result of a motor vehicle-train collision.¹ Defendant-appellant appeals the judgment both as to liability and as to the refusal of the trial judge to grant a remit-titur of the damage award. At the outset, we think there was sufficient evidence to raise a jury question as to liability, and find no reason to overturn the jury’s finding in this regard. We must reverse, however, on the question of damages.

The measure of damages under the wrongful death statute, when the administrator (administratrix) brings the action for the estate, is :2

. . the present value of the prospective earnings and savings which the evidence indicates the decedent could reasonably have been expected to have accumulated during his life expectancy after becoming of age and to have left to his heirs or beneficiaries at his death . . . . That which may be considered in measuring the recovery includes evidence of age, probable duration of life, habits of industry, means, business, earnings, health, skill, and reasonable future expectations. . . .”

Here, the decedent was a 64 year old widow with a life expectancy of approximately 13 years. Undisputedly, she was not employed and had no business, skills, earnings or assets other than personal effects. She received minimal social security benefits derived through her deceased husband, and she received occasional gratuitous financial assistance from her niece, the ad-ministratrix herein; but there was no evidence that such income exceeded her day to day needs. Concededly, a showing of probability as to the amount of damages is not required; but the evidence still must afford a reasonable basis for the amount decided upon by the jury.³ Under the evidence presently in this record we can find no reasonable basis for the $10,000 verdict nor, indeed, for any other than a nominal award. We therefore reverse and remand for a new trial solely on the issue of damages or, in the discretion of the trial judge, the granting of an appropriate remittitur.⁴

Reversed.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and SACK, MARTIN, Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 So. 2d 626, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6653, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seaboard-coast-line-railroad-v-robinson-fladistctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack