Silverman v. Gockman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Silverman v. Gockman

714 So. 2d 671, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 9769, 1998 WL 438898

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 5, 1998

DocketNo. 97-2452

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 714 So. 2d 671 (Silverman v. Gockman) 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

Silverman v. Gockman, 714 So. 2d 671, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 9769, 1998 WL 438898 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from judgment in a legal malpractice suit, and plaintiff cross-appeals from the same judgment. We find no merit in the points raised by appellant, but agree with cross-appellant that the trial court abused its discretion in denying additur.

There was no competent substantial evidence that the damages sustained by cross-appellant amounted to only the $250,000 as awarded by the jury. Rather, the only competent substantial evidence was that the damages sustained by cross-appellant were $520,975.65. We think the trial court overlooked some of the criteria which, according to section 768.74(5), Florida Statutes (1995), the court shall consider in determining whether additur should be granted. We point out in particular the criterion stated at section 768.74(5)(d): ‘Whether the amount awarded bears a reasonable relation to the [672]*672amount of damages proved and the injury suffered ...”

Affirmed in part and reversed in part. The trial court is directed to grant additur consistent with the above, and, if appellant does not agree to the additur, a new trial on damages only. § 768.74(4), Fla. Stat. (1995).

GUNTHER, POLEN and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from judgment in a legal malpractice suit, and plaintiff cross-appeals from the same judgment. We find no merit in the points raised by appellant, but agree with cross-appellant that the trial court abused its discretion in denying additur.

There was no competent substantial evidence that the damages sustained by cross-appellant amounted to only the $250,000 as awarded by the jury. Rather, the only competent substantial evidence was that the damages sustained by cross-appellant were $520,975.65. We think the trial court overlooked some of the criteria which, according to section 768.74(5), Florida Statutes (1995), the court shall consider in determining whether additur should be granted. We point out in particular the criterion stated at section 768.74(5)(d): ‘Whether the amount awarded bears a reasonable relation to the [672]*672amount of damages proved and the injury suffered ...”

Affirmed in part and reversed in part. The trial court is directed to grant additur consistent with the above, and, if appellant does not agree to the additur, a new trial on damages only. § 768.74(4), Fla. Stat. (1995).

GUNTHER, POLEN and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

714 So. 2d 671, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 9769, 1998 WL 438898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silverman-v-gockman-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack