Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...Ross, Jr., New Smyrna Beach, for appellee/cross-appellant. Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Craig B. Willis, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for amicus curiae. ADKINS, Justice. This is a direct appeal from the Circuit Court of Volusia County which held that section 768.043, Florida Statutes (1977) [1] *393 concerning remittitur and additur actions arising out of the operation of motor vehicles, is constitutional....

...Plaintiff moved for a new trial, alleging inter alia, that the verdict was inadequate. The trial court denied this motion but granted plaintiff's motion for additur. The defendant would not agree to the additur so the trial judge ordered a new trial pursuant to section 768.043, Florida Statutes (1977), solely for the purpose of determining plaintiff's damages....

...a new trial because the verdict was inadequate. As to the matters alleged in the cross-appeal, it is the opinion of this Court that no reversible error has been committed by the trial court. We therefore turn to the main issue in this case, whether section 768.043, Florida Statutes (1977), is constitutional. Section 768.043 prescribes a remedy whereby a trial judge is empowered to modify a verdict in a motor vehicle liability suit which is clearly excessive or inadequate. Subsection (2) of the statute provides the criteria to be considered by the trial judge in determining whether the verdict is excessive or inadequate. (See footnote 1.) Defendants argue that the methods established by section 768.043 for review of a jury verdict are procedural in that they set forth a procedure for a trial judge to equitably revise a jury verdict at the trial level. Such a procedural enactment, they argue, amounts to a legislative intrusion into the rule-making province of the judiciary. Plaintiff, on the other hand, argues that the right of a litigant to pursue an additur under section 768.043 is a substantive right, and may properly be provided by the legislature....

...The term "rules of practice and procedure" includes all rules governing the parties, their counsel and the Court throughout the progress of the case from the time of its initiation until final judgment and its execution. Id. To give effect to the evident legislative intent in promulgating section 768.043, we construe the statute as being remedial in nature, granting authority to the trial judge to modify a clearly excessive or inadequate verdict in a motor vehicle liability suit....

...ievance, or introduce regulations conducive to the public good." It is also defined as "[a] statute giving a party a mode of remedy for a wrong, where he had none, or a different one, before." Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed., 1979. Subsection (3) of section 768.043 provides as follows: (3) It is the intent of the Legislature to vest the trial courts of this state with the discretionary authority to review the amounts of damages awarded by a trier of fact, in light of a standard of excessiveness or inadequacy....

...However, it is further recognized that a review by the courts in accordance with the standards set forth in this section provides an additional element of soundness and logic to our judicial system and is in the best interests of the citizens of Florida. (Footnote omitted) (emphasis added). We therefore hold that section 768.043, Florida Statutes (1977), is a remedial statute designed to protect the substantive rights of litigants in motor vehicle-related suits. We also hold, contrary to defendants' contention, that there is no conflict between the statute and Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.530. [2] Rule *395 1.530 delineates the procedures for granting a new trial. Section 768.043 in no way alters or conflicts with Rule 1.530....

...A careful reading of the record and of the criteria set forth in the statute leads us to agree. Paragraph (2) of the trial judge's order holding the statute constitutional, and granting a new trial provides: (2) [T]he verdict returned by the Jury in the amount of $8,500.00 as reviewed by the standards enumerated in section 768.043, Florida Statutes, is clearly inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances presented to the Jury and does not bear a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered by the Plaintiff; in making this fi...

...Our review of the record in this instance does not support the conclusion of the trial judge that additur is necessary to cure an inadequacy in the jury verdict. We therefore affirm that part of the trial judge's order upholding the constitutionality of section 768.043, Florida Statutes (1977), and reverse that portion of the order finding the jury award inadequate and providing for additur in the amount of $16,500.00, and providing for a new trial only on the issue of damages awardable to the plaintiff....

...this very singular statute. For these reasons I dissent from the majority's principal holding, and would find that because additur is a procedural process, the legislature has unconstitutionally usurped the rule-making powers of this Court, and that section 768.043, Florida Statutes (1977), is therefore invalid. BOYD and ENGLAND, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] 768.043 Remittitur and additur actions arising out of operation of motor vehicles....

...new trial on the issue of liability and damages as an alternative to a remittitur of both the compensatory and punitive damage award. We must first make clear that we are not concerned here with a remittitur (or additur) as is provided for in either section 768.043 or section 768.49, Florida Statutes (1980)....

...3d DCA 1969). In that instance, of course, it would not be proper to order a remittitur since the intertwined evidence was insufficient both as to liability and as to damages. Since Florida generally does not recognize additurs, except as provided in sections 768.043 and 768.49 [1] , the rule, therefore, is also different when a verdict for damages is inadequate and the result of the inadequacy may have come about as a result of compromise by the jury on the issue of liability....

...w trial. Her motion was not a motion for a new trial on the grounds that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence or was inadequate as a matter of law. [3] Instead it was a motion for an additur expressly made pursuant to sections 768.043 and 768.74....

...has no power to assess.'" 114 So.2d at 492 (quoting Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U.S. 474, 482, 55 S.Ct. 296, 79 L.Ed. 603 (1935)). [6] When the legislature first authorized additurs in motor vehicle cases in 1977, see Ch. 77-468, § 41, Laws of Fla., and § 768.043, our supreme court said in upholding the validity of that statute as a violation of the right to trial by jury that: "The statute clearly provides for a new trial in the event the party adversely affected by the remittitur or additur does not agree with the remittitur or additur....

...[3] Her motion said: "Comes now the Plaintiff ... and files this Motion for Additur or motion for New Trial on Damages for past and future pain and suffering past and future lost wages and loss of earning capacity pursuant to Florida Statute 768.74, and in support therefore state as follows: 1. Section 768.043, Florida Statutes (1993), is the controlling and applicable statute authorizing the trial court to order, as an alternative to a new trial, an additur to a jury award upon finding the amount of damages awarded by the jury is clearly inadequate [followed by text of section 768.043]....

...mages for excessiveness or inadequacy. Florida has long held that there should be a granting of new trial or additur where the amount of damages awarded is inadequate or inconsistent with either the evidence or other parts of the verdict." [4] See §§ 768.043 and 768.74, Fla....

...Both statutes deal with additurs and remittiturs, the former applying only in automobile accident cases, and the latter applying to all tort and contract actions. The two statutes are substantively identical; the only textual difference is the addition of the adverb "clearly" in two places. We note that if sections 768.043 and 768.74 were in conflict section 768.043 would control....

...found that nineteen years was "the number of years over which those future damages are intended to provide compensation." The verdict also included $70,000 for damages to the front-end loader. The appellants filed a motion for remittitur pursuant to section 768.043, Florida Statutes (2003), asking the trial court "for a remittitur of the award for future medical expenses and future lost earnings to zero and to remit the award for cost of repair to the [l]oader to zero." The trial court granted t...

...on these damages. III. Analysis When a jury award of damages is clearly excessive or inadequate in actions arising out of the operation of motor vehicles, the trial court shall, upon proper motion, order a remittitur or additur of the jury's award. § 768.043(1)....

...(d) Whether the amount awarded bears a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered. (e) Whether the amount awarded is supported by the evidence and is such that it could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons. § 768.043(2)(a)-(e)....

...Blount might incur $45,030 for medical expenses in the future and that Mr. Blount might have suffered $151,905 in damages for loss of earning capacity. This amounts to $196,935 in damages that might occur. This is insufficient to support the jury's award of $220,000 in future damages. Under section 768.043, the trial court should have granted the motion for remittitur. In the absence of supporting evidence, it appears that the "trier of fact . . . arrived at the amount of damages by speculation or conjecture." § 768.043(2)(c). In addition, the amount awarded does not "bear[] a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered." § 768.043(2)(d). And the amount awarded is not "supported by the evidence and is [not] such that it could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons." § 768.043(2)(e). IV. Conclusion In considering the relevant criteria of section 768.043(2) and the evidence presented at trial, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the appellants' motion for remittitur. We therefore reverse the order on appeal and remand for further proceedings on the issue of future damages. See § 768.043(1) ("If the party adversely affected by such remittitur ....

...the petitioner's discount rate, the trial court entered a supplemental order granting additur in the sum of $819,214, plus interest from the date of the jury's verdict. The trial court subsequently denied the petitioner's motion for new trial under section 768.043, Florida Statutes (1997)....

...the reasonableness test to determine whether the trial judge abused his or her discretion. Brown v. Estate of Stuckey, 749 So.2d 490, 498 (Fla.1999). Applying the standard articulated in Poole, we conclude that, in light of the mandate contained in section 768.043, Florida Statutes (1977), the trial court abused its discretion in denying ITT Hartford the alternative of a new trial on the disputed element of damages issue under these circumstances. Accordingly, the district court similarly erred in affirming that decision. Here, the Third District's determination that section 768.043 does not require a defendant to be given the option of a new trial when an additur is granted is contrary to the express language of the statute and analogous precedent concerning *576 remittiturs....

...3d DCA 1974) ("A trial judge is not permitted to reduce the verdict of a jury by ordering a remittitur, without permitting the plaintiff to have the option of a new trial."). This Court's decision in Adams v. Wright, 403 So.2d 391 (Fla.1981), is instructive on this issue. In Adams, this Court, in determining that section 768.043, Florida Statutes (1977), was constitutional, said: We therefore hold that section 768.043, Florida Statutes (1977), is a remedial statute designed to protect the substantive rights of litigants in motor vehicle-related suits. We also hold, contrary to defendants' contention, that there is no conflict between the statute and Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.530. Rule 1.530 delineates the procedures for granting a new trial. Section 768.043 in no way alters or conflicts with Rule 1.530....

...It does appear that this case would lend itself to a consideration of only the discrete issue that caused the problem, which is the reduction to present value. However, that is not what the statute mandates. Rather, the statute specifies that "the court shall order a new trial in the cause on the issue of damages only." § 768.043(1), Fla....

...our jurisprudence. See Fla. Const. art. I, § 22 ("The right of trial by jury shall be secure to all and remain inviolate...."). When the legislature first authorized additurs in motor vehicle cases in 1977, see Ch. 77-468, § 41, Laws of Fla., and § 768.043, our supreme court said in upholding the validity of that statute as a violation of the right to trial by jury that: "The statute clearly provides for a new trial in the event the party adversely affected by the remittitur or additur does not agree with the remittitur or additur....

...We have also reexamined the appellant's claim that the trial court should have granted an additur because of the inadequate amount of the verdict. We have reviewed the trial court's order and his findings denying the motion for additur are supported by the record. In construing section 768.043, Florida Statutes (1985), a predecessor statute substantially identical in text to section 768.74, Florida Statutes, the supreme court reiterated that "the trial judge does not sit as a seventh juror with veto power......

...§ 688, under which the plaintiff's contributory negligence is not a bar to recovery, but rather is the functional equivalent of Florida's comparative negligence rule. [3] The Legislature has since authorized additur in actions arising out of the operation of motor vehicles. See § 768.043, Fla....

...so the jury's already left on that issue. So I'm going to deny that issue. If you wish to file motions at the appropriate time, obviously you can do so. Ellender filed a motion for additur or, in the alternative, for new trial on damages pursuant to section 768.043, Florida Statutes (2003)....

...Past Noneconomic Damages In considering the merits of Ellender's claims, we review the circuit court's denial of his motion for additur or new trial under an abuse of discretion standard. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Manasse, 707 So.2d 1110, 1111 (Fla.1998). Ellender's claim that the jury's verdict was inadequate is governed by section 768.043, which provides: (2) In determining whether an award is clearly excessive or inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances presented to the trier of fact and in determining the amount, if any, that such award exceeds a reasonable...

..."I felt that he has continued neck problems, and there was no—again, in this case, there really was no indication that he had had them before, so I would have to relate them to this [i.e., the automobile accident with Bricker]." There are at least three criteria under section 768.043 that indicate that the jury verdict for past noneconomic damages is inadequate. First, the jury clearly ignored this evidence or misconceived the merits of the case relating to the amount of past noneconomic damages recoverable. See § 768.043(2)(b). Second, the award of zero damages for past pain and suffering does not bear a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proven and the injury suffered. See § 768.043(2)(d). And third, the zero damages award for past pain and suffering is not supported by the evidence. See § 768.043(2)(e)....

...nced and will experience pain and suffering as a result of the accident). VI. Conclusion We reverse the circuit court's final judgment and remand for further proceedings on Ellender's motion for additur or new trial consistent with this opinion. See § 768.043(1) ("If the party adversely affected by such ....

...The order for a new trial was based upon the trial court's finding that the jury's damage verdict was "clearly excessive." Because the trial judge neither stated reasons for finding the verdict "clearly excessive," nor did he first order a remittitur pursuant to the mandate of section 768.043(1), Florida Statutes (1989), we reverse and remand with instructions....

...cifying the grounds for a new trial on the issue of damages. However, we also conclude that the order for a new trial under review has another defect. In ordering the new trial on the issue of damages, the trial judge failed to follow the mandate of section 768.043(1), Florida Statutes (1989), to order a remittitur prior to ordering a new trial *652 because the damages are deemed excessive. On remand, the trial judge shall consider the factors prescribed in section 768.043(2) and the record of the proceedings to determine if he can state support for his conclusion that the verdict is excessive. If the trial judge still concludes the verdict is excessive, he shall order a remittitur and if the remittitur is rejected, a new trial. If after review of the criteria of section 768.043(2) and the record of the trial, the trial judge determines that his previous conclusion that the verdict is "clearly excessive" is not supportable by specific findings, the jury verdict shall be reinstated....

...The Moras did not seek an additur. Over the Moras' objection, the trial court denied the motion and instead imposed a $10,000 additur, $5000 of which was for past pain and suffering and $5000 for future pain and suffering. The trial court based the additur on section 768.043(1), Florida Statutes (2004), which provides: In any action for the recovery of damages based on personal injury or wrongful death arising out of the operation of a motor vehicle ....

...Dollar Rent A Car Systems, Inc., 869 So.2d 767, 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). In Brant, the Fourth District had held that it would be "constitutionally dubious" for the Legislature to grant trial judges the authority to impose additur without the plaintiff's consent and that section 768.043(1) is most reasonably read to allow a plaintiff to refuse an unacceptable additur and insist on a new trial....

...Wright, 403 So.2d 391 (Fla.1981), and ITT Hartford Insurance Co. of the Southeast v. Owens, 816 So.2d 572 (Fla. 2002), we approve the decisions of the First and Fourth Districts and disapprove the decision of the Second District. Prior to the Legislature's adoption of sections 768.043 and 768.74, we had not recognized a trial court's power to grant an additur....

...eight of authority, that in actions at law involving controverted and unliquidated damages courts are without power to require a party to consent to an additur as a condition to refusal to grant a new trial. Id. at 492. Shortly after the adoption of section 768.043, we decided Adams v. Wright, 403 So.2d 391 (Fla.1981), which was a constitutional challenge of the statute. The case involved a challenge by defendants to the trial court granting an additur or a new trial. In our decision, we first held that section 768.043 was remedial in nature, granting authority to the trial judge to modify a clearly excessive or inadequate verdict in a motor vehicle liability suit, and was designed to protect the substantive rights of litigants in those lawsuits....

...an amount that is more than reasonably necessary to *1109 cure an inadequate verdict. In each case, the party that is adversely affected by the amount has a right to a new trial. CONCLUSION In sum, we conclude that a "party adversely affected" under section 768.043 is the party complaining about the amount of the trial judge's additur or remittitur which is ordered in lieu of a new trial because of the jury verdict's excessiveness or inadequacy....

...ff was also negligent. The order purporting to vacate the order of remittitur is reversed; the order granting remittitur is affirmed. The cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. NOTES [1] This cause of action predates Section 768.043, Florida Statutes, (1977).

...After a hearing, the trial court granted an additur in the amount of $21,000 because the "jury inappropriately failed to consider unrebutted evidence as to the medical expenses." Ortlieb appeals the order of additur, and Butts appeals the denial of the directed verdict on liability. Pursuant to section 768.043(1), Florida Statutes (2001), upon motion for additur, a trial court may review the jury's award of damages to the plaintiff and order an additur if it finds the award was clearly "inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances whi...

...We agree and reverse. The trial court granted appellee's motion for additur, ruling that the sum of $47,935 was to be added to the jury's verdict while at the same time denying appellee's motion for a new trial. When a trial court awards an additur in accordance with section 768.043, Florida Statutes (1993), the trial court must consider the statutory criteria when evaluating whether an award is inadequate....

...(d) Whether the amount awarded bears a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered. (e) Whether the amount awarded is supported by the evidence and is such that it could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons. § 768.043(2)(a)-(e), Fla.Stat....

...this defense). NOTES [1] These noneconomic damages were described as: "damages sustained ... for pain and suffering, disability, physical impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life[.]" [2] § 768.043, Fla....

...DeLong of at least nominal damages. Because the zero amount awarded to Mr. DeLong was clearly inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances of this case, we believe the trial court acted appropriately when it ordered a $2,000 additur for Mr. DeLong in lieu of a new trial. See § 768.043(1), Fla....

...Baker, 456 So.2d 1274 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), review denied, 464 So.2d 554 (Fla. 1985). The trial court was under no obligation to grant a new trial on the consortium issue since appellees, the party adversely affected by the additur, accepted the additur. See § 768.043(1), Fla....

...The jury's failure to award that amount as damages was contrary to the weight of the evidence; nonetheless, it does not warrant a new trial in this case in light of the trial court's granting of an *368 additur in an amount greater than her lost wages, which as previously stated was accepted by appellees. See § 768.043, Fla....

...Perry suffered no permanent injuries as a result of the accident, but awarded her $7,250 for past medical expenses, $8,000 for future medical expenses, and $2,300 for past lost earnings. It awarded her no damages for future lost earnings or lost earning capacity. Ms. Perry filed a motion for additur pursuant to section 768.043, Florida Statutes (2005), pointing out that although she incurred $43,166.90 in medical bills, the jury only awarded $7,250 for that element of damages....

...ith Ms. Perry's heart condition, "there should have been no conflict" with respect to the remaining $17,832.99 in past medical expenses. Ms. Moore appeals. There are two statutes that address the subject of additur and remittitur. The older statute, section 768.043, Florida Statutes (2005), was adopted in 1977, and addresses remittitur and additur with respect to cases arising out of the operation of motor vehicles....

...ere the trier of fact determines that liability exists on the part of a defendant and renders a verdict awarding money damages to a plaintiff. The statutes are substantially similar. See Smith v. Dep't of Ins., 507 So.2d 1080, 1092 n. 10 (Fla.1987). Section 768.043 provides generally that in cases arising out of the operation of a motor vehicle, when the trier of fact determines that liability exists on the part of a defendant and a verdict is rendered which awards money damages to a plaintiff,...

...If the court finds that the amount awarded is clearly inadequate, it should order additur. If the party adversely affected does not agree to the additur, it must be granted a new trial on the issue of damages only. In determining whether an award is clearly inadequate a trial court is required by section 768.043(2) to consider, among other things, whether the trier of fact "ignored the evidence" or "misconceived the merits of the case relating to the amounts of damages recoverable." In addition, the court must determine whether the trier of f...

...Florida courts have consistently ruled against the granting of additur. Bennett v. Jacksonville Expressway Authority, 131 So.2d 740 (Fla. 1961); Healey v. Atwater, 269 So.2d 753 (Fla.3d DCA 1972). An exception to this rule was established in 1977 with the passage of sections 768.043 and 768.49, Florida Statutes (1983). [2] Section *1385 768.043 deals with remittitur and additur actions arising out of operation of motor vehicles....

...ficient to warrant a new trial). LETTS and DELL, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Appellee filed a cross appeal, but has not pursued the matter. [2] Section 768.49 deals with claims arising out of medical malpractice and is not applicable to the present case. Section 768.043, Florida Statutes (1983), states: 768.043....

...e expectancy — little more than $1,000 per year — was, in our view, so pitifully small that no reasonable person could have considered it sufficient compensation. On grounds of gross insufficiency, therefore, the judgment under review is reversed. § 768.043(2), Fla....

...O'Dell, 506 So.2d 1107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Sutton v. Logan, 184 So.2d 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966); see also Johnson v. United States, 780 F.2d 902 (11th Cir.1986) (excessiveness). Upon remand, the trial judge is ordered either to grant an additur under section 768.043(1), Florida Statutes (1985), or to order a new trial on damages only at which the evidence and argument shall be confined to the issue of Ms....

...ensate her for the recoverable elements of damages. [5] This is the only element of damages now in issue since Ms. Ballard waived any other personal claim and the defendants have satisfied the judgment for the estate's claims under § 768.21(6). [6] § 768.043(2) provides in pertinent part: Remittitur and additur actions arising out of operation of motor vehicles....

...granted. The City's rejection of the additur resulted in the issuance of the order granting new trial on the issue of damages only. In the order granting a new trial as to damages, the trial judge expressly considered each of the criteria set out in § 768.043, Fla....

...Her determination that the damage award in this case was inadequate was well supported by the facts and circumstances referred to in her order and her determination that the jury's award was inadequate cannot be said to have been an abuse of discretion. Section 768.043, Fla....

...as the issue of damages. See Gross v. Lee, 453 So.2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); 1661 Corporation v. Snyder, 267 So.2d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); Duquette v. Hindman, 152 So.2d 789 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963). However, in this case this question is controlled by § 768.043, Fla....

...cial conscience and indicates that the jury has been influenced by passion or prejudice.'" City of Hollywood v. Hogan, 986 So.2d 634, 647 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (quoting Weinstein Design Group, Inc. v. Fielder, 884 So.2d 990, 1002 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)). Section 768.043, Florida Statutes, requires a trial court to review a jury's award of damages in personal injury actions arising out of automobile accidents: In any action for the recovery of damages based on personal injury or wrongful death arising...

...If the court finds that the amount awarded is clearly excessive or inadequate, it shall order a remittitur or additur, as the case may be. If the party adversely affected by such remittitur or additur does not agree, the court shall order a new trial in the cause on the issue of damages only. § 768.043(1), Fla....

...(d) Whether the amount awarded bears a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered. *279 (e) Whether the amount awarded is supported by the evidence and is such that it could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons. § 768.043(2), Fla....

...Because we find the excessiveness issue preserved, we reverse and remand the case to the trial court. On remand, the trial court should focus on whether the verdict was excessive given the jury's finding of no permanent injury under the factors outlined in section 768.043(2), Florida Statutes, and whether a new trial or remittitur should be granted....

...which there was evidence presented. The trial court, accordingly, did not abuse its discretion in granting the additur requests. On remand, the defendant, in having rejected the additur, is entitled to a new trial, but a new trial on "damages only." Section 768.043(1), Florida Statutes (2000) provides: "If the party adversely affected by such remittitur or additur does not agree, the court shall order a new trial in the cause on the issue of damages only." The defendant does not contest the amou...

...be limited to same. ITT Hartford Ins. Co. of the Southeast v. Owens, 816 So.2d 572 (Fla.2002). ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED MOTION FOR ADDITUR, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL AFFIRMED. CAUSE REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL ON DAMAGES PURSUANT TO § 768.043(1), FLA....

...expenses. We disagree, however, with the trial judge's conclusion that the excess verdict on one item of damages requires a new trial as to all damages. Rather than ordering a new trial, the judge was required to first order a remittitur pursuant to section 768.043, Florida Statutes (1993)....

...Accordingly, we reverse the order granting a new trial on all damages. We remand for reinstatement of the damages awards except the award for future medical expenses. As to the future medical expenses, we direct the trial court to follow the requirements of section 768.043 and enter an order of remittitur....

...of reasonable men could have found the verdict rendered on the evidence submitted to them, a new trial should not be granted. Id. This calls for a “hands off” approach when the evidence is in conflict and the verdict is supported by the evidence. Section 768.043(1), Florida Statutes (2017), provides that “a trial court may grant additur if the court determines the amount awarded was clearly inadequate.” Ferrer, 179 So....

...to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered. (e) Whether the amount awarded is supported by the evidence 4  and is such that it could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons. § 768.043(2), Fla....

...Ferrer requests that this court conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether the facts of this case permit an additur award. A trial court’s additur award is reversed only where there has been a clear abuse of discretion. Aurbach v. Gallina, 721 So. 2d 756, 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Pursuant to section 768.043, Florida Statutes, a trial court may grant additur if the court determines the amount awarded was clearly inadequate....

...(d) Whether the amount awarded bears a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered. (e) Whether the amount awarded is supported by the evidence and is such that it could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons. § 768.043(2)(a)-(e), Fla....

...give rise to a suggestion that the jury may have compromised its verdict." However, in Watson there was no issue of an additur, and thus no need for the application of section 768.74. Prior to the enactment of section 768.74, the legislature enacted section 768.043(1), Florida Statutes (1977), [2] It applies to actions for personal injury or wrongful death arising out of the operation of a motor vehicle, but is otherwise virtually identical to section 768.74. The First District Court of Appeal addressed the application of section 768.043 in City of Jacksonville v....

...as the issue of damages. See Gross v. Lee, 453 So.2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); 1661 Corp. v. Snyder, 267 So.2d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); Duquette v. Hindman, 152 So.2d 789 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963). However, in this case this question is controlled by *1221 § 768.043, Fla....

...The language in the statute is mandatory and requires "[i]f the party adversely affected by such remittitur or additur does not agree, the court shall order a new trial in the cause on the issue of damages only. " Id. at 1276. Therefore, just as the first district held that 768.043 is mandatory, I would hold that 768.74 is mandatory and if a trial court grants an additur or a remittitur and the adversely affected party rejects the additur or remittitur, that party is entitled to a new trial on damages only....

...See Bennett v. Jacksonville Expressway Authority, 131 So.2d 740 (Fla. 1961) (excessiveness of verdict valid reason for granting a new trial); Staib, 391 So.2d at 297. As further support for finding the verdict was excessive, the judge went on to cite section 768.043(2)(e), Florida Statutes (1987), regarding remittitur and additur actions arising out of the operation of motor vehicles and held that "reasonable persons could not conclude that a child is automatically entitled to $850,000 for the de...

...ferent in age, and thus would sustain damages over different time frames. The jury thus appears to have misconceived the evidence or the law governing the award of damages to the children." (Emphasis in the original.) On this basis, and again citing section 768.043, the trial judge held that the jury could only have reached its verdict through speculation or conjecture or through passion or prejudice....

...al as to her damages alone. In doing so, the court found "the jury's verdict of zero damages for future pain and suffering is grossly inadequate and totally inconsistent with the finding of permanent injury and its award of future medical expenses." Section 768.043, Florida Statutes (1993), is the controlling and applicable statute authorizing the trial judge to order, as an alternative to a new trial, an additur to a jury award upon a finding that the amount of damages awarded by the jury is clearly inadequate. Section 768.043(1) provides as follows: 768.043 Remittitur and additur actions arising out of operation of motor vehicles.— (1) In any action for the recovery of damages based on personal injury or wrongful death arising out of the operation of a motor vehicle, whether in tort or in contr...

...hat liable party who would be "adversely affected." The legislature, in its wisdom, did not provide, "If either party affected by such remittitur or additur does not agree, the court shall order a new trial on the issue of damages only." To construe section 768.043(1) as urged by appellee would be to alter the clear words of that legislative enactment....

...Believing the $0 award to be contrary to the evidence, the trial court ordered the jury to reconsider the pain and suffering award. After additional 3 deliberations, the jury awarded Belony $5,000 in past and future pain and suffering. Belony moved for additur pursuant to section 768.043 of the Florida Statutes. At the hearing on the motion, the trial judge expressed “shock” at the pain and suffering award and expressed his view that the jury must have been “coldblooded” to return such a low verdict....

...Veterans was given the option to try anew only the issue of damages if it declined to pay the additional award. Two statutes must be considered in determining whether the trial court properly exercised its discretionary authority to triple the jury's award. Section 768.043, enacted in 1977, provides for remittitur and additur in actions arising out of the operation of motor vehicles....

...Section 768.74, part of the Tort Reform Act of 1986, provides for remittitur and additur in any case where the trier of fact finds liability exists on the part of the defendant and a verdict is rendered awarding money damages to the plaintiff. This latter *266 statute tracks nearly all of the language of section 768.043. Section 768.74, however, appears to give the trial court more discretion in altering a jury verdict. Section 768.043 allows alteration of awards which the trial court finds to be "clearly excessive or inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances presented." Section 768.74 allows alteration where the court simply finds "that the amount awarded...

...[3] The defendants stipulate to the $100,000 figure for past medical expenses only for purposes of the instant appeal. If there is to be a new trial on damages, the defendants maintain that the Morenos will have to prove both past and future medical expenses. [4] Section 768.043, Florida Statutes (2001), similarly authorizes remittitur in actions arising from the operation of motor vehicles.

The applicable law on remittitur is found in section 768.043(1), Florida Statutes (2013), which provides:

...ry verdict amount “is so great or small as to indicate that the jury must have found it while under the influence of passion, prejudice, or gross mistake.” Lassitter v. Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs, 349 So.2d 622, 627 (Fla.1976). See also § 768.043(2)(e), Fla....

...pain and suffering. We agree with plaintiff that the trial court should have granted a new trial rather than itself determining the amount of unliquidated damages for pain and suffering without his consent. The outcome in this case is controlled by section 768.043(1) and the supreme court decision in ITT Hartford Insurance Co. of the Southeast v. Owens, 816 So.2d 572 (Fla.2002), which also involved an additur. As the court explained: "the Third District's determination that section 768.043 does not require a defendant to be given the option of a new trial when an additur is granted is contrary to the express language of the statute and analogous precedent concerning remittiturs." [c.o.] 816 So.2d at 575-76....

...Obviously the complaining party—here the plaintiff—is not required under ITT Hartford to accept a judge's determination of the amount of an additur but is, instead, entitled to have the matter of pain and suffering submitted to another jury. We add the following. The trial judge and defense counsel appear to have read section 768.043(1) to authorize trial judges to set the amount of an additur for pain and suffering damages, even when the complaining party does not consent to the additur....

...jury which has acted improperly, and partly by a tribunal which has no power to assess.'" Sarvis v. Folsom, 114 So.2d 490, 492 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959) (quoting Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U.S. 474, 482, 55 S.Ct. 296, 79 L.Ed. 603 (1935)). To be sure, even if section 768.043(1) did not expressly provide that the adverse party must consent to the additur in order to avoid a new trial, it would be error for a judge to read a power to fix unliquidated damages for intangible losses into the statute by legislative implication....

...State, 361 So.2d 416, 418 (Fla.1978) (well established that when reasonably possible statute should be construed to avoid conflict with constitution); Dep't of Legal Affairs v. Rogers, 329 So.2d 257 (Fla.1976) (same); State v. Dinsmore, 308 So.2d 32 (Fla.1975) (same). In any event, section 768.043(1) expressly provides that the adverse party need not accept the amount of the additur and may instead insist on a new trial on damages. § 768.043(1), Fla....

...“A court cannot allow a jury to award a great *686 er amount of damages than what is reasonably supported by the evidence at trial.” Truelove v. Blount, 954 So.2d 1284, 1287 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (quoting McCarthy Bros. Co. v. Tilbury Constr., Inc., 849 So.2d 7, 9 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)). Section 768.043(2), Florida Statutes (2011), requires a trial court to consider the following when determining whether an award of damages is clearly excessive or inadequate: (a) Whether the amount awarded is indicative of prejudice, passion, or corruption on the part of the trier of fact....

...(d) Whether the amount awarded bears a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered. (e) Whether the amount awarded is supported by the evidence and is such that it could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons. § 768.043(2), Fla....

...These hastily-made modifications, although an earnest effort to comport the summary to the evidence actually presented at trial, were nevertheless not supported by the evidence. Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion by denying the defendant’s motion for remittitur. See § 768.043(2), Fla....

..."When a jury award of damages is clearly excessive or inadequate in actions arising out of the operation of a motor vehicle, the trial court shall, upon proper motion, order a remittitur or additur *289 of the jury's award." Truelove, 954 So.2d at 1287. See § 768.043(1), Fla....

...Prior to addressing the merits of the appeal, we note the trial court did not include in the order on appeal its rationale for granting Plaintiffs motion for new trial. The order granting a new trial was unsupported by any fact or law as required by section 768.043(2)(a)-(e), Florida Statutes (2013), or even the bare finding that the verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence....

...ts cross-claim for indemnification against David’s Used Cars. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s thoroughly considered order granting an additur for the plaintiffs’ non-economic damages pursuant to section 768.043, Florida Statutes (2003)....

...continue her employment; such fear is speculative and cannot serve as a proper basis for these damages. See Joynt, 179 So. 3d at 451. Therefore, we reverse the jury award for future loss of earning capacity and remand for the trial court either to enter a remittitur under section 768.043(2), Florida Statutes, or to grant a new trial solely on the issue of damages for loss of earning capacity....

...Before COPE, GERSTEN and SORONDO, JJ. COPE, J. ITT Hartford Insurance Company of the Southeast appeals an order granting an additur in a personal injury case. Defendant-appellant Hartford contends that it is entitled to reject the additur and be given a new trial. See § 768.043, Fla....

...The error was in the present value calculation which the jury did not understand. Therefore, the court was correct in determining that appellee was entitled to an additur. Normally, defendant would have the option of refusing the additur and obtaining a new trial on the issue of damages. See § 768.043, Fla....

...Both courts concluded that, under the circumstances, a new trial was required on damages but not liability. The wording of the statute is: "If the party adversely affected by such remittitur or additur does not agree, the court shall order a new trial in the cause on the issue of damages only." § 768.043(1), Fla....

...In the present case there is a facial error in the present value calculation for future medical expenses, but this problem logically has no effect on any of the other itemized damages. As already stated, the statute calls for a new trial "on the issue of damages only." § 768.043(1), Fla....

...Estate of Stuckey, 749 So.2d 490, 498 (Fla.1999). We see no abuse of discretion here. Affirmed. [3] SORONDO, J., concurs. GERSTEN, J. (dissenting). I respectfully dissent. Though the majority's pragmatic approach has great cache', it violates both statute and caselaw. Section 768.043(1) details a clear and simple procedure in remittitur and additur actions arising out of the operation of motor vehicles stating: "If the party adversely affected by such remittitur or additur does not agree, the court shall order a new trial in the cause on the issue of damages only." § 768.043(1), Fla. Stat. (1997)(emphasis added). A fortiori, once the trial court grants the plaintiffs motion for additur, and, as here, the adversely affected party does not agree, the trial court must order a new trial. See § 768.043(1), Fla....

...My views in this regard, are summarized and far better expressed in the recent concurring opinion of Judge Hazouri in Jarvis v. Tenet Health Systems Hosp., Inc., 743 So.2d at 1220 (Hazouri, J., concurring specially). Judge Hazouri noted that the language of Section 768.043(1) is virtually identical to Section 768.74, and that the operative word in both statutes is "shall." Thus Judge Hazouri concluded that the statutes' mandatory language entitles the adversely affected party to a new trial upon request, once a trial court grants an additur or a remittitur....

...court could not force them to accept the additur in the place of a new trial on damages. We agree and reverse the addi-tur and the denial of the Moras’ motion for new trial. Additur and remittitur in cases involving motor vehicles are governed by section 768.043, Florida Statutes (2004): In any action for the recovery of damages based on personal injury or wrongful death arising out of the operation of a motor vehicle ......

...If the court finds that the amount awarded is clearly excessive or inadequate, it shall order a remittitur or additur, as the case may be. If the party adversely affected by such remittitur or additur does not agree, the court shall order a new trial in the cause on the issue of damages only. § 768.043(1), Fla....

...First, the trial judge’s awarding and setting the amount of intangible pain and suffering damages impacts the plaintiffs right to trial by jury and to do so over the objection of the offended party is “constitutionally dubious.” Id. at 769 . Second, and most importantly, the court in Brant concluded that section 768.043(1) itself is most reasonably read to entitle a plaintiff to refuse an unacceptable additur and insist on a new trial on damages....

...In rendering this decision, we are aware that in Beyer v. Leonard, 711 So.2d 568, 570 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), our sister court reached a contrary conclusion regarding whether, in the case of an additur, a plaintiff can be a “party adversely affected” within the meaning of section 768.043(1)....

...An order granting a motion for additur is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Bluth v. Blake, 128 So. 3d 242, 245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). To the extent the trial court’s order was based on conclusions of law, however, we apply the de novo standard. Id. Section 768.043, Florida Statutes (2023), authorizes a trial court to grant additur if the court determines the amount awarded was clearly inadequate....

...to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered. 4  (e) Whether the amount awarded is supported by the evidence and is such that it could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons. § 768.043(2), Fla....

...“When a jury award of damages is clearly excessive or inadequate in actions arising out of the operation of motor vehicles, the trial court shall, upon proper motion, order a remittitur or additur of the jury’s award.” Truelove, 954 So.2d at 1287 . See § 768.043(1), Fla....

...l court should have granted GEICO’s motion for remittitur. Given the absence of evidence, highlighted by De-Grandchamp’s closing argument, it appears that the “trier of fact ... arrived at the amount of damages by speculation or conjecture.” § 768.043(2)(c). Additionally, the amount awarded does not “bear [ ] a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered.” § 768.043(2)(d). Finally, the amount awarded is not “supported by the evidence and is [not] such that it could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons.” § 768.043(2)(e)....

Olivas appeal the amended final judgment. Section 768.043(1), Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent

...ting as the sole point on appeal the propriety of the trial court’s action in setting aside the jury award on the wrongful death claim and ordering an additur or new trial. In ordering the additur or new trial the trial court expressly relied upon section 768.043, Florida Statutes (1985), citing various aspects of the evidence which support his determination that an additur was indicated....

...On remand, the trial court may, in its sound discretion, remit the punitive damages award to a reasonable proportion of Goellner's net worth. If the Brewers do not wish to accept the remittitur, they are entitled to a new trial on the sole issue of the amount of punitive damages. See Smith, 471 So. 2d at 170; see also § 768.043(1), Fla....

...was not asked to and did not specify whether the permanent injury was in the neck, the back, or both. The jury awarded Mr. Arias nothing for past or future noneconomic damages. -6-  Mr. Arias filed a motion for additur under section 768.043, Florida Statutes (2016), arguing that the jury's zero verdict for damages for past and future noneconomic damages was inadequate in light of the evidence presented at trial....

...Arias had noneconomic damages caused by the accident was disputed and, under those circumstances, that it would be error to "veto the jury verdict by granting a motion for additur." This is Mr. Arias's timely appeal. II. Section 768.043 governs additur in motor vehicle cases and provides in relevant part that "it shall be the responsibility of the court, upon proper motion, to review the amount of" the jury's "award to determine if such amount is clearly . . . inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances" and, if it finds the amount inadequate, to order an additur. § 768.043(1)....

...into account or engaged in speculation; (4) whether the award bears a reasonable relation to the damages proved and the injury suffered; and (5) whether the award is supported by the evidence and could have been logically determined by reasonable people. See § 768.043(2)(a)-(e)....

...This assessment obviously involves a sense of touch that can be delivered only by the trial judge that heard and saw the evidence. Accordingly, we review an order denying a motion for additur under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. See § 768.043(3) ("It is the intent of the Legislature to vest the trial courts of this state with discretionary authority to review the amounts of -7- damages awarded by a trier of fact ....

...nclude that the jury's zero verdict on future noneconomic damages was consistent with the evidence and merits of the case, bore a reasonable relationship to the damages and injuries proved, and could be logically adduced by reasonable people. See § 768.043(2)(b), (d), (e).3 The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Mr....

...And no one has challenged the jury's award of future medical expenses in this appeal. 3Mr. Arias did not argue in the trial court and does not argue here that the verdict was indicative of passion, prejudice, or corruption or that the jury considered improper elements of damage or speculation. See § 768.043(2)(a), (c). - 17 -  For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the trial court erred by denying Mr....

...to future noneconomic damages and affirm that portion of the final judgment. We also affirm the other portions of the final judgment without further comment. We remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. See § 768.043(1) ("If the court finds that the amount awarded is clearly excessive or inadequate, it shall order a remittitur or additur, as the case may be. If the party adversely affected by such remittitur or additur does not agree, the court shall order a new trial in the cause on the issue of damages only."); Ellender, 967 So. 2d at 1094 (remanding for further proceedings under section 768.043(1) after reversing the final judgment based on the erroneous denial of a motion for additur of past and future noneconomic damages). Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded. MORRIS and BLACK, JJ., Concur....

...Accordingly, we reverse the order granting a new trial and remand with directions that final judgment be entered in accordance with the verdict. REVERSED AND REMANDED. RYDER and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur. . The accident occurred prior to July 1, 1977, so that section 768.043, Florida Statutes (1979), is not applicable to the granting of a new trial in this case on the issue of damages....

Farm rejected the remittitur and, pursuant to section 768.043, Florida Statutes, the trial court ordered

...The order granted an additur in the amount of $195,000 for future medical expenses, $100,000 for past and future pain and suffering, and $100,000 for past and future loss of consortium. Alternatively, the order granted a new trial if the additur was rejected. Appellant rejected the additur, and appeals. Section 768.043, Florida Statutes (2014), requires a trial court, upon motion, to grant an additur if the amount awarded was “inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact.” The statute sets out c...

...amount of damages proved and the injury suffered. 3  (e) Whether the amount awarded is supported by the evidence and is such that it could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons. § 768.043(2)(a)–(e), Fla. Stat. If the party adversely affected by an additur does not agree to the additur, the court must order a new trial in the cause on the issue of damages only. § 768.043(1), Fla Stat....

...granting an additur by providing its findings as set forth in the statutory criteria. The additur was subsequently refused, resulting in a new trial as to damages. “We are unable to say, after viewing the evidence as a whole, that reasonable men could * While section 768.043 relates only to actions for damages arising out of the operation of a motor vehicle, section 768.74 permits additur and remittitur in any negligence action under the same requirements. Case law construing section 768.74 applies equally to cases involving section 768.043. 4 not have concluded that the verdict ....

...d entered judgment in that amount. Vega contends on appeal that the trial court erred in setting aside the jury’s verdict and entering an additur for appellee. We agree. Florida generally does not recognize additurs, except as provided in sections 768.043 and 768.49, Florida Statutes....

...The retainer agreement authorized Vega to represent Hervas in her claim for damages arising out of an automobile accident. Vega contends that the Hervas case was not part of the fee sharing agreement. . 40 percent of the $22,500 fee that Vega received from the Hervas case. . § 768.043, Fla.Stat....

...dence, we reverse the jury award and that part of the final judgment for damages for the future loss of “medical expenses, household goods or services or other economic losses.” We remand for the trial court to either enter a remittitur under section 768.043, Florida Statutes (2013), 1 The parties agreed to use this specific language to describe this element of damages on the verdict form. 2 in the amount of $5365 or, if th...

verdict was excessive, the judge went on to cite section 768.043(2)(e), Florida Statutes (1987), regarding remittitur

...Accordingly, unlike an interlocutory order, it is not subject to modification. Huffman v. Little, 341 So. 2d 268, 269 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1977). With respect to the issue of additur or new trial based on inadequate non-economic damages awarded in a motor vehicle accident case, section 768.043, Florida Statutes (2015), provides that courts "shall consider" the following factors for "determining whether an award is clearly excessive or inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances presented to the trier of fact and i...

...Accordingly, unlike an interlocutory order, it is not subject to modification. Huffman v. Little, 341 So. 2d 268, 269 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1977). With respect to the issue of additur or new trial based on inadequate non-economic damages awarded in a motor vehicle accident case, section 768.043, Florida Statutes (2015), provides that courts "shall consider" the following factors for "determining whether an award is clearly excessive or inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances presented to the trier of fact and i...

...ubstantial amount of economic damages proved and the injury suffered.2 Accordingly, we reverse the denial of the motion for additur and remand for either an additur award or a new trial on past non-economic damages only in accordance with section 768.043, Florida Statutes. REVERSED and REMANDED. COHEN, C.J....

...defendants below in the negligence action filed against them by Appellees arising out of a motor vehicle accident, have timely appealed the trial court’s order granting a new trial following the Garrows’ rejection of an additur ordered by the court under section 768.043, Florida Statutes (2022)....

...3d 538, 539–40 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)). A trial court does, however, have the limited authority to grant an additur in the type of action filed below, but only when, under the facts and circumstances presented to the trier of fact, the money damages awarded are clearly inadequate. See § 768.043(1), Fla....

...experienced and will experience pain and suffering as a result of an accident, a zero award for pain and suffering is inadequate as a matter of law.' " (quoting Dolphin Cruise Line, Inc. v. Stassinopoulos, 731 So. 2d 708, 710 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999))); see also § 768.043(2), Fla....

...Under Florida law, "[a] party who assails the amount of a verdict as being excessive, has the burden of showing it is unsupported by the evidence, or that the jury was influenced by passion or prejudice." Bould v. Touchette , 349 So.2d 1181 , 1184 (Fla. 1977) (internal quotation omitted). Florida Statutes Section 768.043 (2018), which governs remittitur in cases arising from the operation of motor vehicles states, in pertinent part: In any action for the recovery of damages based on personal injury or wrongful death arising out of the operation of a motor vehicle, ......

...If the court finds that the amount awarded is clearly excessive or inadequate, it shall order a remittitur or additur, as the case may be. If the party adversely affected by such remittitur or additur does not agree, the court shall order a new trial in the cause on the issue of damages only. Fla. Stat. § 768.043 (1)....

...previously awarded for pain and suffering and loss of consortium to the damages for loss of wages and medical expenses. The error by the jury was so evident on the face of the record that the trial judge should have ordered a remittitur pursuant to section 768.043, Florida Statutes (1989)....

...The trial court is instructed to enter a remittitur in the amount of $2501, which the jury improperly added to the plaintiffs’ damages for loss of wages and medical expenses. We acknowledge that the party adversely affected by the remittitur has the option of demanding a new trial on the issue of damages alone. § 768.043(1), Fla....

...That is, whether the lower court abused its discretion in denying Aircraft’s motion for a remittitur or new trial in the alternative. We first note that in ruling on this motion and, in particular, on whether the verdict was excessive, the lower court was obligated to look to and follow sections 768.043 and 768.74 of the Florida Statutes....

...(d) Whether the amount awarded bears a reasonable relation the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered. (e) Whether the amount awarded is supported by the evidence and is such that it could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons. § 768.043(2), Fla.Stat....

...Based on the evidence presented, he could have argued for an amount as high as $733,070.00. There is absolutely no indication of how the jury arrived at $903,500.00. In sum, we fail to see how “the amount awarded is supported by the evidence and is such that it could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons.” § 768.043(2)(e), Fla.Stat....

...in this case is, who was the party adversely affected by the remittitur? For guidance, we look to the Florida Supreme Court’s opinion in Waste Management, Inc. v. Mora, 940 So.2d 1105 (Fla.2006), in which the court considered identical language in section 768.043, Florida Statutes, 2 providing for remittitur or additur in damages actions arising out of the operation of vehicles....

...Accordingly, we reverse the amended final judgment, and remand this cause to the trial court to hold a new trial on damages. REVERSED and REMANDED. LEWIS, C.J., and OSTERBAUS, J., concur. . Webb sued as a member of the class described in Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla.2006). . Compare § 768.043(1), Fla....

...ed conditions, the trial judge admitted them all upon finding that the question whether they were relevant and accident related was for the jury. The bills which DOT contended were for treatment not necessitated by the accident totalled over $1,200. Section 768.043, Fla.Stat., relating to re-mittitur and additur in actions arising out of the operation of motor vehicles, requires that the court consider a number of criteria *83 in determining whether remittitur or addi-tur is appropriate....

...and past noneconomic damages. On September 4, 2013, the trial court denied the motion for additur but granted a new trial on past noneconomic damages. The court found the jury’s award of $0 and then $1 for past noneconomic damages inadequate under section 768.043, Florida Statutes, because of the $88,749.84 award for past medical expenses and the evidence of Appellee’s pain and suffering introduced at trial....

...isunderstood the damages issue, so it would be unfair to allow a re-trial on damages only. Cf. Food Lion v. Jackson, 712 So.2d 800 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); ITT Hartford Ins. Co. of the Southeast v. Owens, 760 So.2d 210, 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (intent of section 768.043 is that where the problem leading to the excessiveness or inadequacy is one which affected damages only, then there should be a new trial on damages, but not liability), rev....

the-definition ofi-reckless disregard” in F'.S. -768.43(2)(⅛)3, the-cemmittee-bas concluded- that