Smith v. Kaufman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Smith v. Kaufman

654 So. 2d 1299, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 5759, 1995 WL 322659

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 31, 1995·No. No. 94-1684·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant argues that a $3,000 jury verdict was grossly inadequate, and that the trial court therefore erred in denying her motion for a new trial. We agree, because, although some of her injuries alleged to have resulted from this accident may have existed before the accident, even defendant’s physician admitted that plaintiff had a permanent disability as a result of an ankle injury caused by this accident, and the surgical expenses for the ankle alone exceeded the verdict. See Shelly v. Hartford Casualty Ins. Co., 445 So.2d 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). We therefore reverse and remand for a new trial on damages.

GLICKSTEIN, WARNER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant argues that a $3,000 jury verdict was grossly inadequate, and that the trial court therefore erred in denying her motion for a new trial. We agree, because, although some of her injuries alleged to have resulted from this accident may have existed before the accident, even defendant’s physician admitted that plaintiff had a permanent disability as a result of an ankle injury caused by this accident, and the surgical expenses for the ankle alone exceeded the verdict. See Shelly v. Hartford Casualty Ins. Co., 445 So.2d 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). We therefore reverse and remand for a new trial on damages.

GLICKSTEIN, WARNER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

Smith v. Kaufman, 654 So. 2d 1299, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 5759, 1995 WL 322659 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

654 So. 2d 1299 (Smith v. Kaufman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related