Sharlow v. Freed

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sharlow v. Freed

501 So. 2d 621, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2375, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10541

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 13, 1986

DocketNo. 85-952

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 501 So. 2d 621 (Sharlow v. Freed) 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

Sharlow v. Freed, 501 So. 2d 621, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2375, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10541 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment in a personal injury case. Appellee concedes, and we find, that the jury verdict in this case failed to account for all of the damages suffered by Phillip Sharlow and Donna Sharlow, his wife. Therefore, we must reverse the judgment and remand this case for a new trial on damages. The question of liability was hotly contested and the inadequate verdict, coupled with the questions posed by the jurors during their deliberations, indicate that the jurors were confused about liability as well as about damages, and it is quite likely that they reached a compromise verdict on the issue of liability. Under these circumstances, justice requires a new trial on all issues. See Borges v. Jacobs, 483 So.2d 773 (Fla.3d DCA 1986); Timmy Woods Beverly Hills, Ltd. v. Greenwald, 475 So.2d 256 (Fla.3d DCA 1985); Gross v. Lee, 453 So.2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

UPCHURCH, C.J., and DAUKSCH and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment in a personal injury case. Appellee concedes, and we find, that the jury verdict in this case failed to account for all of the damages suffered by Phillip Sharlow and Donna Sharlow, his wife. Therefore, we must reverse the judgment and remand this case for a new trial on damages. The question of liability was hotly contested and the inadequate verdict, coupled with the questions posed by the jurors during their deliberations, indicate that the jurors were confused about liability as well as about damages, and it is quite likely that they reached a compromise verdict on the issue of liability. Under these circumstances, justice requires a new trial on all issues. See Borges v. Jacobs, 483 So.2d 773 (Fla.3d DCA 1986); Timmy Woods Beverly Hills, Ltd. v. Greenwald, 475 So.2d 256 (Fla.3d DCA 1985); Gross v. Lee, 453 So.2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

UPCHURCH, C.J., and DAUKSCH and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

501 So. 2d 621, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2375, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sharlow-v-freed-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack