Vadala v. Adams

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Vadala v. Adams

301 So. 2d 144, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 8550

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 11, 1974

DocketNo. 73-236

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 301 So. 2d 144 (Vadala v. Adams) 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

Vadala v. Adams, 301 So. 2d 144, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 8550 (Fla. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon examination’of the record on appeal and consideration of the briefs of the parties we are of the opinion that the trial judge erred in granting defendants’ motion for remittitur or, alternative, motion for new trial based upon a determination that the jury verdict was excessive. While a remittitur or a new trial may be allowed through exercise of sound discretion by the trial judge such as, for example, where a verdict awarding damages is shocking to the judicial conscience, if the record supports the award of damages it is an abuse of discretion to set aside the jury award and grant a remittitur or a new trial. See Allred v. Chittenden Pool Supply, Inc., Fla.1974, 298 So.2d 361; Clark v. Russo, Fla.App.1961, 133 So.2d 764; Wise v. Jacksonville Gas Corporation, Fla.App. 1957, 97 So.2d 704; Bach v. Miami Transit Company, Fla.App.1961, 129 So.2d 706. Our review of the record reflects sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the award bears a reasonable relationship to the amount of damages proved and the injuries sustained. Accordingly, the order granting defendants’ motion is quashed and the cause remanded to the trial court with instructions to enter a final judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in accordance with the jury verdict.

Reversed and remanded.

WALDEN and MAGER, JJ., and TURNER, WILLIAM ROGERS, Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon examination’of the record on appeal and consideration of the briefs of the parties we are of the opinion that the trial judge erred in granting defendants’ motion for remittitur or, alternative, motion for new trial based upon a determination that the jury verdict was excessive. While a remittitur or a new trial may be allowed through exercise of sound discretion by the trial judge such as, for example, where a verdict awarding damages is shocking to the judicial conscience, if the record supports the award of damages it is an abuse of discretion to set aside the jury award and grant a remittitur or a new trial. See Allred v. Chittenden Pool Supply, Inc., Fla.1974, 298 So.2d 361; Clark v. Russo, Fla.App.1961, 133 So.2d 764; Wise v. Jacksonville Gas Corporation, Fla.App. 1957, 97 So.2d 704; Bach v. Miami Transit Company, Fla.App.1961, 129 So.2d 706. Our review of the record reflects sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the award bears a reasonable relationship to the amount of damages proved and the injuries sustained. Accordingly, the order granting defendants’ motion is quashed and the cause remanded to the trial court with instructions to enter a final judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in accordance with the jury verdict.

Reversed and remanded.

WALDEN and MAGER, JJ., and TURNER, WILLIAM ROGERS, Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 So. 2d 144, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 8550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vadala-v-adams-fladistctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack