CopyCited 174 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1999 WL 669205
...weight of the evidence. A new trial may be ordered on the grounds that the verdict is excessive or inadequate when (1) the verdict shocks the judicial conscience or (2) the jury has been unduly influenced by passion or prejudice. The procedure under section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1997), for remittitur and additur apply only upon the proper motion of a party....
CopyCited 55 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2003 WL 21180319
...t precede any finding of damages"). [17] Without this prior assessment it is impossible to determine whether punitive damages bear a "reasonable" relationship to the actual harm inflicted on the plaintiff, as required by Florida and federal law. See § 768.74(5)(d), Fla....
CopyCited 51 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1999 A.M.C. 2286, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 13191
... Colombia, we agree with the district court that a secondary purpose underlying Florida's compensation
scheme is that damages awards are sufficient to compensate survivors of a decedent while not posing an
excessive and unfair burden upon domiciliary defendants. Cf. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 768.74(1) (conferring
discretion to courts to review damages awards to ensure that they are neither excessive nor inadequate).
We first examine whether Colombia's policy of compensating its domiciliaries would be served in
this case....
CopyCited 51 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 232, 108 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 111, 2010 WL 20987
...le relation to the
amount of damages proved and the injury suffered; and
(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.
Fla. Stat. § 768.74(5)....
...al process conducted by
reasonable people.
Since the compensatory award falls within a range of damages reasonable
under Florida law, it does not constitute a clear abuse of discretion for the district
court to let it stand. Cf. Fla. Stat. § 768.74(6) (“The Legislature recognizes that the
reasonable actions of a jury are a fundamental precept of American jurisprudence
and that such actions should be disturbed or modified with caution and
discretion.”)....
...determined that it was unreasonable. See id. §
768.73(1)(d). The factors the trial
court is obliged to consider when assessing the excessiveness of a punitive award
are the same factors it must consider when assessing the amount of a compensatory
award. See id. §
768.74(5)....
...1985), a “jury may properly punish each wrongdoer by
exacting from his pocketbook a sum of money which, according to his financial
ability, will hurt, but not bankrupt.” Bould v. Touchette,
349 So. 2d 1181, 1186-87
(Fla. 1977).
This punitive award of $500,000 does not offend Florida Statute §
768.74(5)....
CopyCited 47 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1990 WL 75061
...We, therefore, refuse to overturn the jury’s verdict on the causation issue. D. The Appealability of the Additur Order The defendant’s fourth argument challenges the order of the additur by the district court. The additur was ordered pursuant to Florida Statutes § 768.74....
...warded bears a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered; and (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. Fla.Stat.Ann. § 768.74 (West Supp.1970)....
CopyCited 33 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
...ida’s compensation scheme
is that damages awards are sufficient to compensate survivors of a decedent while not
posing an excessive and unfair burden upon domiciliary defendants. Cf. Fla. Stat.
61
Ann. § 768.74(1) (conferring discretion to courts to review damages awards to ensure
that they are neither excessive nor inadequate).
We first examine whether Colombia’s policy of compensating its domiciliaries
would be served in this case....
CopyCited 29 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1991 WL 253375
...r a directed verdict. As to the points on cross appeal, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in entering the order of remittitur. Zambrano v. Devanesan,
484 So.2d 603 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), rev. denied,
494 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 1986). Section
768.74(4), Fla....
CopyCited 23 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2002 WL 506947
...3d DCA 2000). If an appellate court determines that reasonable persons could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, there can be no finding of an abuse of discretion. Brown v. Estate of Stuckey,
749 So.2d 490 (Fla.1999). Section
768.74, Florida Statutes governs additur and authorizes trial courts to review the amount of damages awarded under a verdict to determine if they are "inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact." §
768.74(1). In denying additur, the trial court stated that it considered the statutory guidelines found in section
768.74(5): [7] *697 2....
CopyCited 21 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 520, 1989 Fla. LEXIS 1005, 1989 WL 120849
...Pierre is one of the conflict cases on which we base our jurisdiction. [3] It should be noted that the legislature has subsequently addressed remittitur and additur, thus giving these devices a statutory basis. Ch. 86-160, § 53, Laws of Fla. (codified at § 768.74, Fla....
CopyCited 18 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 4734565, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 14155
...xpressly and specifically accept the remittitur; and (2) the trial court determined that the compensatory damages award was excessive and “seemed to be the result of prejudice or passion.” Pursuant to Florida’s remittitur and ad-ditur statute, section 768.74 of the Florida Statutes, (2012), the trial court has the responsibility to review the amount of an award and determine if it is excessive or inadequate “in light of the facts and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact.” § 768.74(1). “If the court finds that the amount awarded is excessive or inadequate, it shall order a remittitur or additur, as the case may be.” § 768.74(2)....
...r the amount awarded bears a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered; and (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. § 768.74(5) (emphasis added)....
...ion appeared to be a result of prejudice or passion is not well-taken. To the contrary, a remittitur is the prescribed remedy for a trial court’s finding that an award may be excessive because it is indicative of prejudice, passion, or corruption. §
768.74(5)(a); Glabman v. De La Cruz,
954 So.2d 60, 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (reversing a jury award, remanding to the trial court with instructions to follow section
768.74, and ordering a remittitur because the verdict on damages was so excessive that it only could have been the result of passion or emotion)....
...The statute expressly provides that upon making such a finding, the trial court must first order a remittitur or additur, and then, only after the party adversely affected by the change in damages does not agree, the trial court must order a new trial on the damages amount. §§ 768.74(2), (4), Fla....
...Alexander’s mental pain and loss of consortium with her husband of almost thirty-eight years had a value of $20 million. The trial judge, who also was able to observe Mrs. Alexander and review all the evidence presented by both parties, applied the mandates of section 768.74 to remit the compensatory damages award to $10 million....
...Townsend,
90 So.3d at 312 ; see also Cohen,
102 So.3d at 19 (affirming a $10 million compensatory damages award on evidence “nearly identical to the evidence relied upon ... in Townsend ”). The trial court is in the best position to determine whether the compensatory damages award is excessive. See §
768.74(6) (underscoring the trial court’s discretionary authority to review the damage amounts awarded by the jury in light of the “fundamental precept of American jurisprudence ......
...Accordingly, because the evidence presented at trial, which has already been addressed in this opinion, “bears a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered,” we conclude the remitted $10 million compensatory damages award was not excessive. Townsend,
90 So.3d at 311 (quoting §
768.74(5)); Cohen,
102 So.3d at 18 (“[A jury] verdict should not be disturbed unless it is so inordinately large as obviously to exceed the maximum limit of a reasonable range within which the jury may properly operate.”) (quoting Aills v....
...carefully wrapped in presumption of correctness and securely tied with the strong cord of a jury verdict.' ”) (quoting Smith v. Goodpasture,
179 So.2d 240, 240-41 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)). . Citing to Olivas v. Peterson,
969 So.2d 1138 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), Lorillard alleges that section
768.74 does not require an express objection to a remittitur in order to preserve entitlement to a new trial under the statute....
CopyCited 18 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 539838
...[4] The ability to scrutinize a verdict for either inadequacy or excessiveness based on the use of an itemized verdict was part of the stated legislative intent in enacting section
768.77, which mandates itemization of damage amounts broken down into categories. §§
768.74(6),
768.77, Fla....
...Section
768.77 was part of the Tort Reform and Insurance Act, which became effective in 1986. Ch. 86-160, § 56, at 752, Laws of Fla. In fact, the legislative enactment states that "[i]t is the intention of the Legislature that awards of damages be subject to close scrutiny by the courts." §
768.74(3)....
CopyCited 18 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1998 WL 821756
...The jury awarded no damages for Marcia Aurbach's loss of consortium. She filed a motion for additur on her consortium claim. The trial court's entry of final judgment after hearing all post-trial motions was tantamount to a denial of the motion for additur. Section 768.74(1), Florida Statutes (1997), authorizes additur in cases where the trial court determines that an award of damages is "inadequate in light of the facts and *758 circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact." Section 768.74 did not alter the "longstanding principles" governing a trial court's deference to a jury's assessment of damages....
...ro verdict is inadequate as a matter of law. See Waldron v. Dorsey,
585 So.2d 403, 404 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Christopher v. Bonifay,
577 So.2d 617 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). An award that is inadequate as a matter of law may be ameliorated by additur under section
768.74....
...Under these circumstances, the trial court abused its discretion in denying Marcia Aurbach's motion for additur. We remand with direction to grant the motion for additur and to determine an appropriate amount for her loss of consortium pursuant to section 768.74....
...We reject the Gallinas' argument that Marcia Aurbach waived her entitlement to additur because she did not file a motion for new trial. Typically, a motion for additur will be coupled with a motion for new trial. See Trawick, Fla.Prac. and Proc. § 26-1 (1993 ed.). However, the only pleading requirement in section 768.74 is that a "proper motion" be made for remittitur and additur....
...The statute does not mandate the concomitant filing of a motion for new trial. Especially for a limited issue such as loss of consortium, a party may choose not to seek the expensive, extensive relief of a new trial, preferring instead to travel only under section 768.74 with a motion for remittitur or additur. Of course, if a motion is granted under the statute, the "party adversely affected" may elect not to agree with the ruling, so that a new trial on damages may be necessary. See § 768.74(4), Fla.Stat....
CopyCited 17 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 2261504
...She requested an award for each man's loss of dignity for the 800 days from their rejection for promotion to their retirement. When a defendant files a motion for remittitur, the trial court must evaluate the verdict in light of the evidence presented at trial. In section 768.74, Florida Statutes, the legislature made its intent specific that "awards of damages be subject to close scrutiny by the courts and that all such awards be adequate and not excessive." § 768.74(3), Fla....
CopyCited 17 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1989 WL 73758
...Damage for mental pain and suffering is one of the late developments in the law and its potentialities are not restricted as they formerly were because so much has been learned of the evil consequences that flow from mental injury.
43 So.2d at 636-637. We have reviewed the criteria for remittitur contained in section
768.74(5), Florida Statutes (1985), and find that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering remittitur or new trial on damages....
CopyCited 16 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2000 WL 726363
...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....
...It involves only a claim for unliquidated damages and arises when a party claims that undifferentiated general damages represent an award of a specific kind, the effect of which is to entitle the claimant to other damages as well. Plaintiff's motion for an additur was made pursuant to section 768.74 and its counterpart, section 786.043....
...r or additur. The party may have the matter of damages submitted to another jury. Defendants' attack on the constitutionality of the statute is without merit." Adams v. Wright,
403 So.2d 391, 395 (Fla. 1981). It was only in 1986 with the creation of section
768.74 that the legislature gave judges a general power of additur....
...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 this state." [e.s.] See TRIA §
768.74(6). It therefore made plain that an adjustment of damages by additur or remittitur was dependent on the consent of the adverse party and that party's right to have a new jury try the issue. See §
768.74(4) ("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."); and Adams v. Wright,
403 So.2d at 395. One important area in which motions for new trials on weight of the evidence grounds differ from these section
768.74 motions for additurs and remittiturs is in regard to the common law willingness to tolerate some lack of uniformity and predictability in personal injury damages awardsi.e., in permitting differing awards even on similar facts....
...findings of influence outside it support his determination."
239 So.2d at 14. This judicially tolerated "inconstancy of result" inevitably diminishes the ability of litigants and their lawyers to predict what they might reasonably expect in a trial. Section
768.74, however, is drafted to a contrary purpose. It requires that damages awards be scrutinized for adequacy or excessiveness on statutory standards of excessiveness or adequacy. See §
768.74(3) ("It is the intention of the Legislature that awards of damages be subject to close scrutiny by the courts and that all such awards be adequate and not excessive.") and
768.74(6) ("[I]t 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 this state.")....
...s awarded. In short additurs and remittiturs under this statute in the circumstances of this case are impossible without the legislatively mandated itemized verdicts. Consequently I would hold that the statutory power of additur and remittitur under section 768.74 requires the use of an itemized verdict to preserve the issue....
...er the amount awarded was for medical expense, lost income which plaintiff also sought, or both. Moreover, if the legislature had wanted to make an itemized verdict a requirement for seeking a remittitur or additur it would have said so. Instead, in section 768.74, authorizing remittitur and additur, the legislature adhered to the "discretionary standard of review for trial courts." § 768.74(6), Fla....
...retion. [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]. 2. Section
768.74, Florida Statutes, requires the trial court to review an award of money damages 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....
...utomobile 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....
CopyCited 15 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 2016, 2006 WL 197182
...Powell,
180 So. 757, 763
(Fla. 1938)). “Damages are also recoverable for mental suffering such as
embarrassment, humiliation, deprivation of liberty, and disgrace and injury to the
person’s feelings and reputation.” Id.; see also Fla. Stat. §
768.74(5).
Barnes & Noble argues that Johnson did not suffer any actual damages such
as medical costs, and the amount awarded was accordingly excessive....
CopyCited 15 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 69, 1996 Fla. LEXIS 101, 1996 WL 63079
...Beers, Maitland, for Respondent. GRIMES, Chief Justice. We have for review Veterans Auto Sales & Leasing Co. v. Poole,
649 So.2d 264 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), wherein the district court of appeal certified the following question to be of great public importance: If section
768.74 permits a trial judge to order a new trial unless the affected party agrees to accept a remittitur or additur when a reasonable person could agree that the record supports the jury decision (assuming no trial error or jury misconduct),...
...99 in medical expenses and for the requested increase in future support for Andrew and Sara Pritchard but reversed the additur for pain and suffering. The district *191 court analyzed the pain and suffering award in light of the factors set forth in section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1993), which provides for remittitur or additur in cases where a verdict is rendered awarding money damages to a plaintiff....
...the validity of the order. We have chosen not to answer the certified question because it appears to address an abstract scenario which may not relate to the instant case. However, we do not lightly dismiss the concerns which prompted the question. Section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1993), provides that the trial judge shall grant a remittitur or additur when the jury award is excessive or inadequate....
CopyCited 15 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2003 WL 21910630
...Granting an Additur The parties agree that the standard of review of an order granting additur is "clear abuse of discretion." Basel v. McFarland & Sons, Inc.,
815 So.2d 687, 696 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Aurbach v. Gallina,
721 So.2d 756 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Section
768.74(1), Florida Statutes (1999), states: (1) In any action to which this part applies wherein the trier of fact determines that liability exists on the part of the defendant and a verdict is rendered which awards money damages to the plain...
...the amount awarded bears a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered; and (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. "Section
768.74 did not alter the `longstanding principles' governing a trial court's deference to a jury's assessment of damages." Aurbach,
721 So.2d at 758, quoting Poole v....
CopyCited 12 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 2002 WL 716263
...issue of damages: *575 We have chosen not to answer the certified question [4] because it appears to address an abstract scenario which may not relate to the instant case. However, we do not lightly dismiss the concerns which prompted the question. Section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1993), provides that the trial judge shall grant a remittitur or additur when the jury award is excessive or inadequate....
...weight of the evidence. A new trial may be ordered on the grounds that the verdict is excessive or inadequate when (1) the verdict shocks the judicial conscience or (2) the jury has been unduly influenced by passion or prejudice. The procedure under section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1997), for remittitur and additur apply only upon the proper motion of a party....
...guage of the statute and analogous precedent concerning *576 remittiturs. [5] Cf. Aurbach v. Gallina,
721 So.2d 756, 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (observing that, while a party need not file a motion for new trial in seeking a remittitur or additur under section
768.74, Florida Statutes (1977), "[o]f course, if a motion is granted under the statute, the `party adversely affected' may elect not to agree with the ruling, so that a new trial on damages may be necessary," citing section
768.74(4)); Born v....
...The *577 party may have the matter of damages submitted to another jury. Defendants' attack on the constitutionality of the statute is without merit. Id. at 394-95 (emphasis added); cf. also Beauvais v. Edell,
760 So.2d 262, 269 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (Farmer, J., concurring) (citing section
768.74(4) and Adams,
403 So.2d at 395, in observing that the Legislature "made plain that an adjustment of damages by additur or remittitur was dependent on the consent of the adverse party and that party's right to have a new jury try the issue") review denied,
780 So.2d 912 (Fla.2001); Jarvis,
743 So.2d at 1221 (Hazouri, J., concurring specially) (concluding that, once the trial court grants an additur or a remittitur, the mandatory language of section
768.74(4) entitles the adversely affected party to a new trial upon request)....
...1089, 1091 (1985) ("If a special verdict is used, however, error may only affect a few of the jury's findings, thus limiting a second trial to the issues covered by the tainted findings."). We find no authority for the dissenting view here, [7] which would interpret section *579 768.74(4) to require a new trial as to all damage elementsincluding those which the record reflects are not in dispute resulting in a needless waste of time and resources for both the litigants and the trial judge....
...Thereafter, this Court upheld the constitutionality of the statute as being remedial. Judge Farmer's concurring opinion in Beauvais v. Edell,
760 So.2d 262, 266-67 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), sets out important precedent: Plaintiff's motion for an additur was made pursuant to section
768.74 and its counterpart, section 786.043[sic]....
...ur or additur. The party may have the matter of damages submitted to another jury. Defendants' attack on the constitutionality of the statute is without merit." Adams v. Wright,
403 So.2d 391, 395 (Fla.1981). It was only in 1986 with the creation of section
768.74 that the legislature gave judges a general power of additur....
...FREIDIN: Since THE COURT: I am not going to ask them about that specific figure. MR. FREIDIN: Okay. [4] In Veterans Auto Sales & Leasing Co. v. Poole,
649 So.2d 264 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), the district court of appeal certified the following question as one of great public importance: If section
768.74 permits a trial judge to order a new trial unless the affected party agrees to accept a remittitur or additur when a reasonable person could agree that the record supports the jury decision (assuming no trial error or jury misconduct),...
...r; rather, it concerns the grant of a new trial where a court has determined that the verdict in a case is grossly inadequate. The trial court's authority to do so was well entrenched in Florida's common law prior to codification of the principle in section 768.74(4), Florida Statutes....
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1992 WL 277248
...The body of the act contains further findings, including, "the purpose of this act [is] ... to ensure that injured persons recover reasonable damages... ." Id., § 2. Two important aspects of tort reform are the itemized verdict statute, section
768.77, Florida Statutes (1989), and the remittitur and additur statute, section
768.74, Florida Statutes (1989)....
...ff, serves the beneficial purpose of allowing the court to scrutinize each item of damages in light of the evidence actually presented in support of that item. Edward M. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Van Dyke,
590 So.2d 1023 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). By passage of section
768.74, the legislature stated its intention that awards of damages be subject to "close scrutiny by the courts and that all such awards be adequate and not excessive." Section
768.74(3), Fla....
...the amount awarded bears a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injuries suffered; and (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. § 768.74(5), Fla....
...ered. Accordingly, and with due regard for the "soundness and logic" of judicial resolution of the often perplexing problems raised in cases involving noneconomic loss, we reverse and remand this case for a new trial on past noneconomic damages. See § 768.74(6), Florida Statutes (1989)....
...concerning the value of pain and suffering into an objective determination with particularized standards. While I don't disagree that it was the legislative intent to provide for more predictability in jury verdicts in tort cases by the enactment of section 768.74(3), Florida Statutes (1989), I do not believe that the basic nature of these types of damages has changed....
...Thus, while criteria have been set out in the statute to be utilized in considering the adequacy of excessiveness of all damages, these criteria do not reach the certainty of particularized standards especially in the case of noneconomic damages. Prior to the enactment of the statutory criteria in section 768.74(5), Fla....
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 3510, 2004 WL 534047
...Rosen,
214 So.2d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)). REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL ON DAMAGES. PETERSON and PALMER, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Final judgment was entered in the amount of $112,000 after the reduction for Dekylen's comparative negligence. [2] By enacting section
768.74, Florida Statutes (1986), the Legislature shed further light on the factors to be considered by the court in considering the adequacy of a verdict. Section
768.74(5) provides: In determining whether an award is 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 range of damages...
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1993 WL 182478
...nt 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......
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 910742
...The verdict is to be "reduced to the highest amount which the jury could have properly awarded." Rety,
546 So.2d at 420 (citing Lassitter,
349 So.2d at 627). On remand, the trial court must follow the appropriate statutory procedures, set forth in section
768.74, Florida Statutes (2006), when ordering remittitur. See §
768.74, Fla....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1991 WL 50134
...ed the jury award from $1,672 to $8,671 dollars. Dombrosky cross appeals the denial of his motion for new trial on damages alone. We address the issue raised in the cross appeal first because we find it dispositive. Dombrosky argues that pursuant to section 768.74, Fla....
...amages to Dombrosky. We remand for a new trial on both the issue of liability and the issue of damages. REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent herewith. HERSEY, C.J., LETTS, J., and WALDEN, JAMES H., Senior Judge, concur. NOTES [1] Section 768.74, Fla....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 16277, 2001 WL 1434195
...tentional torts, unless committed in connection with commercial transactions. Alamo Rent-A-Car v. Mancusi,
599 So.2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), approved in part, quashed in part,
632 So.2d 1352 (Fla.1994). Thus it clearly does not apply to this case. Section
768.74 is another potentially applicable statute. The trial court did not expressly address the criteria set forth in section
768.74, "Remittitur and Additur," in denying the defendant-appellant's motion for remittitur. It denied relief on the ground stated that the amount of punitive damages awarded "did not shock the conscience of the court." [6] In any event, the trial court's consideration of section
768.74 does mandate further consideration of the punitive damage award based on federal constitutional criteria, because the criteria in section
768.74 have very little correlation with the criteria set forth in Cooper and BMW v. Gore . The statutory criteria of section
768.74 are: (a) whether the amount awarded is indicative of prejudice, passion or corruption on the part of the trier of fact; (b) whether it appears that the trier of fact ignored the evidence in reaching a verdict or misconceived the merits...
...nsatory damages, do not rest upon a determination of factual issues. [7] Further, the standard of review by a state appellate court of a trial court's determination under this section is abuse of discretion, [8] or under the statute, close scrutiny. § 768.74(3), Fla....
...does it enter the zone of arbitrariness that violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
517 U.S. at 568,
116 S.Ct. 1589 (emphasis supplied). Furthermore, claims of excessiveness relating to capped punitive damage awards are dealt with pursuant to the provisions of section
768.74, Florida Statutes, which allow for remittitur of excessive awards. See §
768.73(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (1993) (now found in section
768.73(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1999); providing that section
768.74 applies to review punitive damage awards)....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 637502
...Wackenhut v. Canty,
359 So.2d 430 (Fla. 1978) (trial judge improperly acted as seventh juror in ordering remittitur or new trial; province of jury ought not to be invaded by a judge merely because he raises a judicial eyebrow at its verdict); but see §
768.74, Fla....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2014 WL 1031461, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3916
...the evidence in reaching a verdict or misconceived the merits of the case relating to the amounts of damages;” “the trier of fact took improper elements of damages into account;” and “the amount awarded is [not] supported by the evidence.” § 768.74(5), Fla....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2003 WL 1239998
...We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the security camera videotapes. Nor did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying Hendry's request for remittitur. A remittitur is entered when the amount awarded is excessive or contrary to the evidence. Fla. Stat. § 768.74(1)(2002). Section 768.74(4) provides that, "[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." Implicit in this procedure is a remittitur amount that the adverse party can accept in lieu of a new trial....
...Even at oral argument, counsel for Hendry could not give the court a figure which his client would consider as not excessive. In Brown v. Estate of Stuckey,
749 So.2d 490, 498 (Fla. 1999), the Florida Supreme Court stated that the "procedure under section
768.74, Florida Statutes (1997), for remittitur and additur apply only upon the proper motion of a party." (emphasis added)....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...able
relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury
suffered; and
(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.
§ 768.74(5), Fla....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2002 WL 553391
...by the order ....") (quoting Prime Orlando Props. v. Dep't of Bus. Regulation,
502 So.2d 456, 459 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)). The fact that the trial court granted remittitur without providing the plaintiff the opportunity for a new trial, in violation of section
768.74(4), Florida Statutes (2001), does not make the order under review final....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 128019
...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. Stat. (1989); §
768.74, Fla....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 583692
...It awarded appellant $9,000 in damages for medical expenses and lost earnings in the past, but awarded no damages for future medical expenses and lost earnings, and no damages for pain and suffering past or future. Appellant filed a motion for additur pursuant to section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1991), or a new trial, which the trial court denied....
...fering and future lost wages. *161 When a trial court is presented with a motion for an additur, it must review the amount of the award to determine if such amount is inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances presented to the trier of fact. § 768.74(1), Fla....
...r the amount awarded bears a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered; and (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. § 768.74(5), Fla....
...agnosis and treatment. The jury did more than award appellant his costs resulting from his confusion over what caused his injury. By so doing, it found appellant's treatment was reasonable and necessary to address the damages caused by appellee. [3] § 768.74(5)(d), Fla. Stat. (1991). [4] § 768.74(5)(e), Fla....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2002 WL 397469
...Because the evidence produced at trial supports an award of compensatory damages, the trial court erred by directing a verdict for nominal damages. We next turn to the alternative ruling by the trial court granting Eckerd's motion for remittitur and reducing the award of damages to one hundred dollars. Section 768.74(1), Florida Statutes (1993), states that upon proper motion a court has the responsibility to review an award of money damages to determine whether the award is excessive or inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances that were presented to the trier of fact. Section *988 768.74(2), Florida Statutes (1993), provides that if a court finds the amount awarded is excessive or inadequate, the court shall order a remittitur or additur. If the party adversely affected by the remittitur or additur does not agree, the court shall order a new trial on the issue of damages only. § 768.74(4), Fla....
...r the amount awarded bears a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered; and (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. § 768.74(5), Fla....
...d dollars, the final judgment must be reversed. See Rety v. Green,
546 So.2d 410, 418-19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). A new trial on the issue of damages is appropriate since Normius has not agreed to accept the reduced amount awarded by the trial court. See §
768.74(4)....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2000 WL 826864
...Gallina,
721 So.2d 756, 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). The trial court denied Arena Parking's motion for additur without stating any reasons for the exercise of its discretion. Under the facts of this case, we believe this was a clear abuse of discretion. In section
768.74(1), Florida Statutes (1997), the legislature authorizes trial courts to review the amount of damages awarded under a verdict to determine if they are "inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact." Section
768.74(5) provides further guidance. When presented with an additur motion, the trial court must consider whether the jury "misconceived the merits of the case relating to the amounts of damages recoverable," §
768.74(5)(b), and whether it "arrived at the amount of damages by speculation and conjecture." §
768.74(5)(c). The trial court must also determine "[w]hether the amount awarded bears a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered." §
768.74(5)(d). Finally, the court must decide "[w]hether the amount awarded is supported by the evidence and is such that it could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons." §
768.74(5)(e)....
...damages proved. There is no logical explanation as to how reasonable persons who found liability under the promissory estoppel theory ended up awarding only 16% of the damages claimed. The trial court should have ordered an additur and, pursuant to section 768.74(4), if the defendants disagreed to the additur ordered, then ordered a new trial on damages....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 7584, 1998 WL 335788
...ed by section
768.77. The instant case is very similar to Broward County School Board v. Dombrosky,
579 So.2d 748 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), in which the fourth district remanded for a new trial on damages and liability while recognizing the provisions of section
768.74, Florida Statutes (1987), require that the adverse party be given the choice of accepting the amount of the additur or a new trial on damages only....
...ompromise on the issue of liability when it awarded Jackson her medical expenses without considering non-economic damages. We, accordingly, choose to follow Dombrosky in remanding for a new trial on both liability and damages. We also recognize that section 768.74 instructs that the adverse party be given the choice of accepting the amount of additur or a new trial on damages only, but we do not believe that the legislature intended to preclude a court from ordering a new trial on both damages and liability where the jury compromised the verdict....
...l on both issues of liability and damages. REVERSED and REMANDED. GOSHORN, J., concurs. THOMPSON, J., dissents, with opinion. THOMPSON, Judge, dissenting. I respectfully dissent. I would relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court for compliance with section 768.74, Florida Statutes....
...Plaintiff Shirley Jackson should be given the opportunity to accept the additur, and, if Food Lion, the party adversely affected, does not agree to the additur, the trial court should order a new trial on damages alone, as required by the statute. § 768.74(4), Fla....
...ially gut the remedies of the remittitur and additur statute. The purpose of the remittitur and additur statute is to see "that awards of damages be subject to close scrutiny by the courts and that all such awards be adequate and not excessive." See § 768.74, Fla....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 50
...motion to remit the jury’s compensatory awards to the Decedent’s daughter ($7.5 million) and son ($4 million) because they are excessive and out of line with comparable cases. We disagree. Pursuant to Florida’s remittitur and ad-ditur statute, section 768.74 of the Florida Statutes, the trial court has the responsibility to review the amount of an award and determine if it is excessive or inadequate “in light of the facts and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact.” § 768.74(1), Fla. Stat. (2013). “If the court finds that the amount awarded is excessive or inadequate, it shall order a remittitur or additur, as the case may be.” § 768.74(2), Fla....
...r the amount awarded bears a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered; and (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. § 768.74(5), Fla....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1999 WL 76059
...Fravel challenges the trial court's denial of his motion for remittitur, contending the trial evidence did not support the jury's award of past and future medical expenses. We agree that the $200,000 award of future medical expenses is not supported by the record. Section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1995), provides, in relevant part: Remittitur and Additur.- (1) In any action to which this part applies wherein the trier of fact determines that liability exists on the part of the defendant and a verdict is render...
...ompensation" for five years. Our review of the evidence reveals that the amount awarded for Emily's future medical expenses does not bear a reasonable relationship to the damages proved at trial. Thus, the award is not supported by the evidence. See § 768.74(5)(e), Fla....
...Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order denying Dr. Fravel's motion for remittitur and remand this matter for entry of an order for remittitur, or, in the alternative, if the plaintiffs do not agree with the remittitur, to order a new trial in this cause on the issue of damages. See § 768.74(4), Fla....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 1859108, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8252
...4th DCA 2008); Weinstein Design Group, Inc. v. Fielder,
884 So.2d 990, 1002 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). In ruling on a motion for remittitur, the trial court must evaluate the verdict in light of the evidence presented at trial. Hogan,
986 So.2d at 648 . Section
768.74, Florida Statutes, provides criteria for evaluating awards of damages and mandates that courts subject awards of damages to close scrutiny and make certain that they be adequate and not excessive....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2001 WL 454675
...v. reversed. Having so concluded, we now turn to the additurs ordered in the case. Appellants argue that while the trial court identified the inadequacy of the awards at issue, the amount of the additurs ordered were woefully insufficient. We agree. Section 768.74(1), Florida Statutes (1997), authorizes additurs in those cases where the trial court determines that an award of damages is "inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact." Section 768.74 did not alter the longstanding principles governing a trial court's deference to a jury's assessment of damages....
...re generally accepted in the relevant scientific community and the burden is on the proponent of the expert evidence to establish by a preponderance of the evidence the general acceptance of the underlying scientific principles and methodology). [5] Section 768.74 provides in pertinent part: (5) In determining whether an award is 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 reasonab...
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 3062, 2003 WL 882356
...AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings. BARFIELD and POLSTON, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Cases 1D01-4210 (the liability appeal) and 1D02-759 (the attorney's fees appeal) were consolidated for the record on appeal, for oral argument, and for purposes of this opinion. [2] See § 768.74(6), Fla....
...1985); Regency Lake Apartments Assocs., Ltd. v. French,
590 So.2d 970, 975 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). [3] See, e.g., Carrousel International Corp. v. Auction Co. of America, Inc.,
674 So.2d 162 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); LoCastro v. Ruane,
525 So.2d 500 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). [4] See §
768.74(1), Fla. Stat. (2001); see also Carrousel International Corp.,
674 So.2d at 163. [5] §
768.74(4), Fla....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...The verdict should be disturbed only when “it is so inordinately large as obviously to exceed the maximum limit of a reasonable range within which the jury may properly operate.” Id. at 1184-85 . These general principles are consistent with the legislative policy expressed in section 768.74, Florida Statutes (2009). This statute recognizes that “the reasonable actions of a jury are a fundamental precept of American jurisprudence and that such actions should be disturbed or modified with caution and discretion.” § 768.74(6), Fla. Stat. But the statute also requires courts to give “close scrutiny” to damage awards, section 768.74(3), Florida Statutes, and it lists several criteria for the court to consider in determining whether an award “exceeds a reasonable range of damages.” § 768.74(5), Fla....
...he award is not so inordinately large that it shocks our collective judicial conscience. Cf. id. at 347 (affirming $4.4 million non-economic damage award, but noting the award was “on the outer limit in size”). Judged by the factors set forth in section 768.74(5), Florida Statutes (2009), the amount of compensatory damages in this case is not beyond reason....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 3452387
...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. The more recent statute, section
768.74, Florida Statutes (2005), was adopted in 1986, and extended the capacity of a trial judge to order remittitur or additur in any case where the trier of fact determines that liability exists on the part of a defendant and renders a verdict awarding money damages to a plaintiff....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1998 WL 204900
...or future medical care, and non-economic damages. Ramey appeals the denial of his motion for new trial or additur. Winn Dixie cross-appeals the denial of its motion for directed verdict. We reverse and remand the cause for a new trial on all issues. Section 768.74, Florida Statutes, requires the trial court to review an award of money damages for excessiveness or inadequacy....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
presented to the trier of fact." Id. §
768.74(1). The remittitur statute explains that although
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1992 WL 308876
...The trial court's order states in pertinent part: Having reviewed the case and after hearing argument of counsel, the Court finds that the damage award pursuant to the Jury Verdict dated December 6, 1990 is inadequate based upon the criteria set forth in F.S. 768.74(5)....
...If such an order is appealed and does not state the specific grounds, the appellate court shall relinquish its jurisdiction to the trial court for entry of an order specifying the grounds for granting the new trial. We reject appellees' argument that the trial court's reference to the criteria set forth in section 768.74(5), Florida Statutes (1989) satisfied the requirements of rule 1.530(f)....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 4113, 1994 WL 162762
...The record does not demonstrate that the jury "misconceived the merits of the case relating to the amounts of damages recoverable;" that the award does not bear a "reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered;" or that the amount awarded is unsupported by the evidence. Section 768.74(5)(b), (d), (e), Fla....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1999 WL 1244440
...rt should remit the damage award to $51,000 for each plaintiff. After receiving extensive argument on Franklin Life's motion, the trial court entered an orderthe order under review granting a remittitur or a new trial on damages only pursuant to section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1995)....
...udgment in accordance with the verdict in favor of Franklin Life and Robert Vega Murray against counts I, II, and III of both plaintiffs' third amended complaints.... It is further ordered and adjudged, upon consideration of the factors set forth in section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1995), the amount awarded by the jury to each of the plaintiffs on count IV of the Third Amended Complaints is excessive....
...While Franklin Life does seek reversal of the order which granted, at least in part, its motion for a new trial, it cannot be said that Franklin Life is not aggrieved by the order which, given the appellees' election, in effect denied its motion for new trial on liability by limiting the new trial to damages only pursuant to section 768.74(4), Florida Statutes (1995)....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 14208, 2001 WL 1189523
...2d DCA 1967); see also Hendricks v. Dailey,
208 So.2d 101, 103 (Fla.1968). Popular Bank alternatively contends that the trial court reversibly erred by denying its motion to amend judgment which sought a $48,697 remittitur of the jury's award of special transaction fees pursuant to section
768.74, Florida Statutes (1999) [3] , where RCAF's expert witness *620 conservatively estimated such fees to be $451,303, and the jury awarded $500,000 to RCAF....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 16663
...The basis for the jury’s damage award was, as Golzar’s counsel argued in closing, equal to the cumulative hourly pay that Owens would have received as a Wackenhut employee from the date of the incident until the day Owens would reach the age of sixty-five. .Wackenhut also made a post-trial motion pursuant to section 768.74 of the Florida Statutes seeking a remittitur of the non-economic damages awarded....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 6615, 2009 WL 1490826
...May 29, 2009. *839 Brooke C. Madonna and Amy L. Christiansen of Spector Gadon and Rosen, P.C., St. Petersburg, for Appellant. Michael J. Carter of Morgan & Morgan, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee. SAWAYA, J. We are here concerned with the provision of section 768.74(4), Florida Statutes (2005), which provides that "[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." The issue we must resolve i...
...dequate. The trial court further found that a new trial was necessary to determine the amount of damages only. In this appeal of that order, Westminster argues that the trial court erred in not ordering a new trial on both liability and damages. [2] Section 768.74 authorizes the trial court to grant an additur where the court determines that the award of damages is "inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact." § 768.74(1), Fla. Stat. (2005). The statute further 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." § 768.74(4), Fla....
...esolve. Westminster is correct that the trial court should have granted its request for a new trial on both liability and damages. A line of decisions rendered by the district courts, including this court, hold that despite the limiting provision in section 768.74(4), when a jury award is inadequate and an additur is necessary to correct the inadequacy, a new trial on the issues of liability and damages is appropriate when the liability issue was hotly contested by the parties....
...ity must be unequivocally established and not substantially disputed at trial; nor can it be the result of the jury's compromise on the liability issue...."); Food Lion v. Jackson, 712 *
842 So.2d 800, 803 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (noting the provision in section
768.74(2) that instructs that the adverse party be given the choice of accepting the amount of additur or a new trial on damages only, and holding that a new trial on the issue of liability should also be ordered if liability was hotly contested); Newalk v....
...[2] Westminster also argues that: 1) in granting an additur, the trial court improperly sat as a seventh juror and interfered with the jury's function in our judicial system; 2) if the verdict is inconsistent, Mikesell did not properly preserve her right to seek a new trial; and 3) under the plain language of section 768.74, Florida Statutes, the trial court lacked the authority to award an additur....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1989 WL 29043
...McClury,
157 So.2d 545 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963); but see Schaffer v. Pulido,
492 So.2d 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (party who submitted jury instruction and verdict form could not request new trial on invited error). The possibility of an addittur also exists in this case. §
768.74, Fla....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 11758, 2011 WL 3108076
...order entered during the relinquishment period. We find not only the original remittitur failed to contain the requisite findings, but the record does not support, and the order entered on relinquishment fails to justify, a remittitur in this case. Section 768.74, Florida Statutes (2010), governs remittiturs and additurs....
...r the amount awarded bears a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered; and (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. § 768.74, Fla....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 21391, 2012 WL 6171608
...e findings on appeal. The trial court abused its discretion in denying PM USA’s motion for new trial based on the compensatory and punitive damages awards. The trial court found that the non-economic and punitive damages were excessive pursuant to section 768.74(5), Florida Statutes (2007): I am [] convinced that the jury panel was conscientious, intelligent, and sincerely intent on doing justice....
...Mora,
940 So.2d 1105 (Fla.2006), and Olivas v. Peterson,
969 So.2d 1138 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), for the proposition that even where a defendant’s motion for remittitur is granted, the party seeking the remittitur may still be “a party adversely affected” under section
768.74, Florida Statutes, the remittitur statute....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 11459, 2010 WL 3059445
...e medical expenses to an appropriate amount. If Ms. Aills does not agree to accept the remittitur of the award for future medical expense, then the trial court shall order a new trial on the issue of the damage award for future medical expenses. See § 768.74(4), Fla....
...ture noneconomic damages from $4,000,000 to $1,750,000. We reject Ms. Aills' first argument without discussion and turn to the consideration of her second argument. The trial court's consideration of Dr. Boemi's motion for remittitur was governed by section 768.74....
...Upon the filing of a proper motion, a trial court has the responsibility to review the amount of an award of money damages to determine if the "amount is excessive or inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact." § 768.74(1). "If the [trial] court finds that the amount awarded is excessive or inadequate, it [is required to] order a remittitur or [an] additur." § 768.74(2). "If the party adversely affected by [the] remittitur or additur does not agree, the court [must] order a new trial ... on the issue of damages only." § 768.74(4)....
...r the amount awarded bears a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered; and (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. § 768.74(5). Section 768.74 reflects "the intention of the Legislature that awards of damages [should] be ... close[ly] scrutin[ized] by the courts and that all such awards be adequate and not excessive." § 768.74(3)....
...o litigate rather than settle a claim." Id. The comparison of jury verdicts reached in similar cases provides one method of assessing "[w]hether the amount awarded bears a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered." § 768.74(5)(d)....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2000 WL 354199
...ot recommended any award to him. It is the responsibility of the trial court, upon proper motion, to review the amount of any award of money damages and, if, in the court's discretion, the court finds the award inadequate, it shall order an additur. § 768.74(1) Fla....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28664, 2007 WL 1174111
...t awarded bears a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered; and (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. Fla. Stat. § 768.74(5) (2006); see also Spencer v....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 2780988
...Related to a ruling on a motion for new trial is the trial court's responsibility when considering a motion for additur or remittitur "to review the amount" of a damage award "to determine if such amount is excessive or inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact." § 768.74(1), Fla. Stat. (2006). Section 768.74(5) sets forth the criteria that a court "shall consider" in "determining whether an award is excessive or inadequate." In Allstate Insurance Co....
...Unlike the award in Manasse, this award was not merely for palliative care. It provided for the most aggressive medical treatment to which the doctors testified. Thus, the amount awarded did not "bear[] a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered." § 768.74(5)(d), Fla....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 10842, 1997 WL 593906
...floor at the time of the incident in time to prevent Plaintiff's fall or remedy the condition. The parties were given ten days to file a written acceptance or rejection of the additur, with a rejection resulting in a new trial on damages pursuant to section 768.74, Florida Statutes....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 3964705, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 15313
...This court reviews a trial court’s order denying a motion for remitti-tur for abuse of discretion. City of Hollywood v. Hogan,
986 So.2d 634, 647 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Florida law requires that “awards of damages be subject to close scrutiny by the courts and that all such awards be adequate and not excessive.” §
768.74(3), Fla....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...13
410, 418 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). See also Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Alexander,
123
So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). This longstanding principle of deference to the
trial court’s review of a jury’s damages award is reinforced by section
768.74,
Florida Statutes (2016) entitled “Remittitur and additur,” which provides:
1) In any action to which this part applies wherein the trier of fact
determines that liability exists on the part of the defendant and a...
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 1980214, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 7822
...Corbin,
25 So.3d 1260, 1268 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) ("The party claiming an excessive verdict bears the burden to prove that the amount is not supported by the evidence or that the jury was influenced by matters beyond the bounds of the record.”); see also §
768.74, Fla....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 9065, 1999 WL 454399
...The trial court heard counsels' arguments and ordered a remittitur to $50,000. Kaine rejected the remittitur and filed this appeal. Kaine contends on appeal that in setting aside the $325,000 verdict and granting the remittitur to $50,000, the trial court abused its discretion by not following the criteria set out in section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1997), and by not following clearly established Florida law on remittitur....
...e allowed. The verdict should not be disturbed unless it is so inordinately large as obviously to exceed the maximum limit of a reasonable range within which the jury may properly operate. Id. at 1184-5 (citations omitted). In conjunction with this, section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1997), lists the criteria to be followed by a trial court in determining if an award is excessive. Section 768.74(5) states, in pertinent part: (5) In determining whether an award is 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 reason...
...ce and the other findings of fact.... I think the jury was obviously confused. The manifest weight of the evidence is against this. This is absolutelywhat's the word? A fluke. The trial court made no findings of fact to satisfy the requirements of section 768.74 that the damage award was excessive or so large that it indicated the jury was influenced unduly by passion, prejudice, or corruption. Further, the trial court's written order did not delineate the specific record evidence of the excessiveness, as required by section 768.74....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 601549
...that "[l]iability was never an issue with this jury which found both equitable and legal liability." Subsequently, the trial court granted the appellees' motion for additur and increased the damages award from $375,000 to $550,000. Florida Statutes section 768.74(1) authorizes trial courts to review the amount of awarded damages "to determine if such amount is excessive or inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact." Section 768.74(4) further requires that "[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." The First District commented in 1661 Corp....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1997 WL 740658
...nterior designer. The jury awarded her the following: Combined past medical $140,000. expenses and lost earnings. Past pain and suffering 15,000. Future pain and suffering 15,000. Future medical expenses and -0- future lost earning ability. Although section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1995), appears to require a trial court to find a verdict inadequate before granting an additur, the trial court did not find this verdict inadequate....
...It only asks that the verdicts be affirmed. We treat the order, for purposes of review, as if the court found the verdicts grossly inadequate. [1] In Poole v. Veterans Auto Sales and Leasing Co., Inc.,
668 So.2d 189, 191 (Fla.1996), the Florida Supreme Court concluded that section
768.74, Florida Statutes (1995), which authorizes remitturs and additurs, does not alter the "long-standing principles applicable to the granting of new trials on damages." And in Rowlands v....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2003 WL 22970864
...Manasse,
707 So.2d 1110 (Fla.1998); Cloud v. Fallis,
110 So.2d 669 (Fla.1959). She argues that the trial court had a superior vantage point to judge the validity of the verdict in the context of the claims asserted and evidence presented. She further points out that under section
768.74(6), Florida Statutes, the legislature has vested in the trial court the discretionary authority to review damage awards in light of excessiveness or inadequacy....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 6479252, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 19645
...After entry of the order granting the motion for additur, the developers filed a motion for new trial on the issue of damages against the attorney. The developers argued that they objected to the amount of the additur and, therefore, they were entitled to a new trial on damages against the attorney pursuant to section 768.74(4), Florida Statutes (2011). Section 768.74(4) states: 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. § 768.74(4), Fla....
...ropriate as an additur. This conclusion of law was error in four respects. First, neither the developers’ motion for additur, nor the court’s order granting the additur, nor the record, indicates the existence of any of the criteria set forth in section 768.74(5), Florida Statutes (2011), which would have justified granting any additur. Section 768.74(5) states: In determining whether an award is 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 range of damages o...
...amount awarded bears a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered; and (e) Whether the amount awarded is supported by the evidence and is such that *246 it could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons. § 768.74(5), Fla....
...en no proof at trial concerning the correct measure of damages.”) (citation omitted). Because the court erred in finding that nominal damages were appropriate as an additur, no legal basis existed for the developers to seek a new trial pursuant to section 768.74(4) as the “party adversely affected” by the additur....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1999 WL 641885
...We hold that the evidence presented supports Judge Franza's conclusion that the jury properly awarded punitive damages. We also hold that the record supports Judge Franza's conclusion that appellees successfully rebutted the presumption of excessiveness of the punitive damage award. See § 768.74(5)(a)-(e), Fla....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5324, 2012 WL 1150210
...1st DCA 2003). Upon the filing of RJR’s motion for new trial or remittitur, the trial court had to review the amount of damages to determine if the award was excessive “in light of the facts and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact.” § 768.74(1), Fla....
...r the amount awarded bears a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered; and (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. § 768.74(5), Fla....
...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 this state.” § 768.74(6), Fla....
...Boemi,
41 So.3d 1022, 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (“The comparison of jury verdicts reached in similar cases provides one method of assessing ‘[wjhether the amount awarded bears a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered.’ §
768.74(5)(d).”)....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 14986, 2004 WL 2290630
...We find that the trial court abused its discretion in granting an additur of the future pain and suffering award, after he had already resubmitted the issue to the jury for further deliberation. A trial judge has broad discretion in ruling on a Motion for Additur. § 768.74(6), Fla....
...However, in determining whether the jury verdict is adequate, the trial court "cannot sit as a seventh juror." Republic Serv. of Fla., L.P. v. Poucher,
851 So.2d 866 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)(quoting Laskey v. Smith,
239 So.2d 13, 14 (Fla.1970)); Aurbach v. Gallina,
721 So.2d 756 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Section
768.74(1), Florida Statutes, authorizes trial courts to review damages awarded under a verdict "to determine if such amount is excessive or inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact." §
768.74(1) Fla. Stat. (2003). Section
768.74(5), Florida Statutes, requires the court to consider the following criteria: (a) Whether the amount awarded is indicative of prejudice, passion, or corruption on the part of the trier of fact; (b) Whether it appears that the trier of f...
...r the amount awarded bears a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered; and (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. § 768.74(5), Fla....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 17713
...Analysis a) Remittitur of the Compensatory Damage Award “We review an order denying a motion for remittitur or a new trial under an abuse of discretion standard.” City of Hollywood v. Hogan,
986 So.2d 634, 647 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Pursuant to Florida’s remittitur and ad-ditur statute, section
768.74 of the Florida Statutes, the trial court has the responsibility to review the amount of an award and determine if it is excessive or inadequate “in light of the facts and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact.” §
768.74(1), Fla. Stat. (2014). “If the court finds that the amount awarded is excessive or inadequate, it shall order a remittitur or additur, as the case may be.” §
768.74(2), Fla....
...r the amount awarded bears a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered; and (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. § 768.74(5), Fla....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1999 WL 1037925
...The central issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in granting a new trial on both liability and damages once the additur was rejected. We conclude that the court did err in this regard, and reverse and remand for a new trial on damages only. Section 768.74(4), Florida Statutes addresses the procedure to be followed for remittitur and additur, and states that "[i]f the court finds that the amount awarded is excessive or inadequate, it shall order an additur or remittitur, as the case may be." § 768.74(2), Fla. Stat. (1997). The statute further provides that "[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." § 768.74(4), Fla....
...HAZOURI, J., concurring specially I concur in the result but write to express my disagreement with our court's decision in Broward County School Board v. Dombrosky,
579 So.2d 748 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), for its failure to follow the mandatory requirement of section
768.74(2), Florida Statutes (1997). As the majority points out, the pertinent part of section
768.74(2) 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." §
768.74(2), Fla....
...4th DCA 1990), for the proposition that: "when a damage award is clearly inadequate and the issue of liability is hotly contested, such circumstances 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 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....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 718747
...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 is excessive or inadequate." Both statutes list several criteria for consideration when evaluating whether an award is excessive or inadequate. These factors include: (a) whether the amount awarded is indicative of prejudice, passion or corruption on the part of the trier of fact; (b) whether it clearly appears (the new section
768.74 eliminates the word "clearly") that the trier of fact ignored the evidence in reaching the verdict or misconceived the merits of the case relating to the amount of damages recoverable; (c) whether the amount awarded is supported by the...
...this additur case. We find that the award in the instant case for pain and suffering was not "so inordinately [small] as obviously to [be below] the [minimum] of a reasonable range within which the jury may properly operate." Bould at 1184-85. While section 768.74 may give slightly greater discretion to the trial court to alter a jury verdict than that which existed previously, we find it was an abuse of discretion to alter the pain and suffering award even under section 768.74....
...HARRIS, C.J., concurs and concurs specially, with opinion. HARRIS, Chief Judge, concurring specially: I concur with the majority opinion [1] but with some reservation and with a suggestion that this matter be certified to the supreme court. The majority opinion is based on section 768.74(5)(e), Florida Statutes (1993), which requires that the jury's decision be upheld if it is "supported by the evidence and could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons." The focus of this standard of review is on the jury's action....
...in Baptist Memorial. It is not clear, at least to me, exactly what discretion a judge has in granting a new trial based solely on whether the manifest weight of the evidence supports the amount of the jury award. It appears under Rowlands and under section 768.74 that it is the court's responsibility, upon motion, to review the record to see if the amount of the award is supported by the evidence....
...fact finder even in a jury trial? The concept of permitting a trial judge, by statute, to override a jury verdict based on the judge's view of the evidence is especially troubling in light of Florida's strong (constitutional) policy on jury trials. Section 768.74, Florida Statutes, sets out criteria for the judge to use in deciding whether or not to grant a new trial in lieu of a remittitur or an additur....
...terfere with it regardless of the judge's independent opinion as to the amount of damages and even if a reasonable person might agree with the judge. However, because of the language in Baptist Memorial, I would certify the following question. IF SECTION
768.74 PERMITS A TRIAL JUDGE TO ORDER A NEW TRIAL UNLESS THE AFFECTED PARTY AGREES TO ACCEPT A REMITTITUR OR ADDITUR WHEN A REASONABLE PERSON COULD AGREE THAT THE RECORD SUPPORTS THE JURY DECISION (ASSUMING NO TRIAL ERROR OR JURY MISCONDUCT), DOES THIS SECTION VIOLATE ARTICLE I, SECTION 22, CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA? I recognize that in Smith v. Department of Ins.,
507 So.2d 1080 (Fla. 1987), the supreme court upheld the constitutionality of section
768.74 against a challenge that it violated the separation of powers provision of our constitution....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida
best interests of the citizens of this state. §
768.74, Fla. Stat. (2014) (emphasis added). None
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 3615113
...ollision. However, as the Morenos also contend on appeal, the jury's verdict for future medical expenses, $171,000, must be supported by sufficient evidence in the record before us. In conjunction with the well-established Florida law on remittitur, section
768.74, Florida Statutes (2001), [4] delineates certain criteria a trial court must follow in determining if an award is excessive and, therefore, contrary to the weight of the evidence. See Fravel,
727 So.2d at 1037; Kaine,
735 So.2d at 601. Section
768.74(5) states, in relevant part, as follows: (5) In determining whether an award is 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 excee...
...Here, our review of the record reveals that there is insufficient evidence to support an award for Arnulfo Moreno's future medical expenses in the amount of $171,000. Moreover, the trial judge was correct in finding that the amount awarded does not bear a reasonable relationship to the damages proved at trial. See § 768.74(5)(e), Fla....
...medical experts and was not reasonably related to the damages actually proven. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order granting the defendants' motion for remittitur or new trial as to past and future medical expenses awarded by the jury. See § 768.74(4), Fla....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 14527
...motion for
remittitur constituted an abuse of discretion. We remand for the trial court to
determine a remittitur amount, or order a new trial on damages if the party
adversely affected by the remittitur does not agree to the remitted amount. See §
768.74(4), Fla....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 2361748, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 10122
...sturb these findings on appeal. The trial court did not err in denying PM USA’s motion for new trial based on the compensatory and punitive damages awards. The trial court found that the non-economic and punitive damages were excessive pursuant to section 768.74(5), Florida Statutes: I am [] convinced that the jury panel was conscientious, intelligent, and sincerely intent on doing justice....
...hing a verdict or misconceived the merits of the case relating to the amounts of damages recoverable; (c) Whether the trier of fact took improper elements of damages into account or arrived at the amount of damages by speculation and conjecture. ... § 768.74(5)(a)-(c), Fla. Stat. (2010) (emphasis added). Based on the criteria set forth in section 768.74(5), “[i]f the court finds that the amount awarded is excessive or inadequate, it shall order a remittitur or additur, as the case may be.” § 768.74(2), Fla....
...of $9,825,000, as reduced by the trial court, remains grossly excessive and must be reduced further. Florida law requires that “awards of damages be subject to close scrutiny by the courts and that all such awards be adequate and not excessive.” § 768.74(3), Fla....
...s remittitur. In its initial brief, PM USA essentially argued that it was entitled to a new trial on damages because the jury was swayed by passion and prejudice. However, PM USA never argued in its initial brief that a new trial was required under section 768.74 because it was a "party adversely affected” by the remittitur. The argument based on section 768.74 is clearly a separate and distinct argument from the....
...one raised on appeal. As a result, this is not merely a case where the appellant made an argument on appeal, but failed to- cite relevant cases in support of its argument. Rather, the substance of the argument—that it was entitled to a new trial under section 768.74 as the party adversely affected by the remittitur—was never raised in the initial brief and was raised for the first time in the guise of a notice of supplemental authority....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 2631879, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 9372
...Reynolds Tobacco Company, appeals the trial court’s remitted punitive damages judgment of $20 million. Appellant argues that the trial court erred by denying Appellant’s request for a new trial on damages. Appellant contends it was entitled to object to the proposed remitted judgment, as provided by section 768.74(4), Florida Statutes, as interpreted by our supreme court in Waste Management, Inc....
...Appellant contended below, as it *846 does now, that the proper procedure is to allow both parties to accept or reject the proposed remitted judgment, and absent an agreement, submit the matter to a jury for a new trial on damages, as required by both section 768.74(4) and Mora ....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2003 WL 21537344
...nsurance Act, which became effective in 1986. Ch. 86-160, § 56, at 752, Laws of Fla. A stated legislative purpose of the Act was that damage awards "be subject to close scrutiny by the courts and that all such awards be adequate and not excessive." § 768.74(3), Fla....
...The itemized verdict form required by the statute "serves the beneficial purpose of allowing the court to scrutinize each item of damages in light of the evidence actually presented in support of that item." Dyes v. Spick,
606 So.2d 700, 703 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Section
768.74(5), Florida Statutes (2001) sets out five criteria to be applied by the court in determining the adequacy of a verdict....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1562, 2011 WL 470117
...2d at 1266 . A verdict comes to an appellate court clothed with a presumption of regularity and should not be disturbed if supported by the evidence. Deklyen,
867 So.2d at 1266 . A trial court’s consideration of a motion for additur is governed by section
768.74, Florida Statutes (2009), which requires the court to determine if the “amount [of damages awarded] is excessive or inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact.” §
768.74(1), Fla. Stat. (2009). “If the [trial] court finds that the amount awarded is excessive or inadequate, it [is required to] order a remittitur or [an] additur....” §
768.74(2), Fla. Stat. (2009). “If the party adversely affected by [the] remittitur or additur does not agree, the court [must] order a new trial ... on the issue of damages only.” §
768.74(4), Fla....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 2447643
...Spencer timely objected, and requested a new trial on damages. We agree with Spencer that the trial court erred by entering a final judgment based upon the adjusted verdict amounts without affording Spencer a new trial on damages, and reverse. Motions for additur and remittitur are governed by section 768.74, Florida Statutes....
..." Id. at 576-77 (emphasis in original). *1290 Spencer filed a motion [1] stating that she disagreed with the trial court's adverse decision as to additur and remittitur, and requesting a new trial on damages "as statutorily mandated by and pursuant to § 768.74(4), Fla....
...Stat." Having requested a new trial on damages, the trial court erred in not granting Spencer's motion. Therefore, we reverse the final judgment, and remand for a new trial on damages. REVERSED and REMANDED. PLEUS, C.J., and GRIFFIN, J., concur. NOTES [1] Section 768.74(4), Florida Statutes, does not provide a timeline for filing an objection to an order of additur or remittitur, and case law provides no guidance on the issue....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 4553, 2000 WL 390393
...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....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 908187
...rder a new trial on damages only. Upon proper motion, it is a trial court's responsibility to review the amount of a damages award to determine if it is excessive or inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances that were presented to the jury. § 768.74(1), Fla. Stat. (2001). Once a trial court determines that a damages award is excessive, it must order a remittitur. § 768.74(2), Fla. Stat. (2001). "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. " § 768.74(4), Fla....
...The Fifth District reasoned that the questions from the jury and the verdict conveyed a strong indication of compromise on the issue of liability when it awarded the appellee medical expenses without considering non-economic damages. Id. at 802. While recognizing that section 768.74(4) prescribes that a trial court order a new trial on damages only when an additur or remittitur is rejected, the Fifth District explained that it did not believe that the "legislature intended to preclude a court from ordering a new trial on both damages and liability where the jury compromised the verdict." Id....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...The circuit court issued an order granting the plaintiff’s additur motion,
specifically adding $225,000 for future pain and suffering, resulting in a
$250,000 combined past and future pain and suffering award. In support,
the circuit court’s order cited section 768.74(5)(d), Florida Statutes (2019),
and Ortlieb v....
...According to the circuit court’s order, the jury’s
$25,000 award in this case was far below “the average award” for this type
of injury.
3
The defendant filed a notice rejecting the additur which, pursuant to
section 768.74(4), Florida Statutes (2019), entitled the defendant to a new
damages trial.
3....
...granting an additur, because the jury’s $25,000 combined past and future
pain and suffering award did not bear a reasonable relationship to the
evidence, and shocked the circuit court’s conscience.
We agree with the defendant’s argument. Section 768.74, Florida
Statutes (2019), provides:
(1) In any action to which this part applies wherein the trier
of fact determines that liability exists on the part of the
defendant and a verdict is rendered which awards money...
...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 this state.
§ 768.74, Fla. Stat. (2019).
Pursuant to section 768.74, we recognize a trial judge has discretionary
authority to grant an additur motion, and “[t]he fact … there may be
substantial, competent evidence in the record to support the jury verdict
does not necessarily demonstrate that the...
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...motion for
remittitur constituted an abuse of discretion. We remand for the trial court to
determine a remittitur amount, or order a new trial on damages if the party
adversely affected by the remittitur does not agree to the remitted amount. See §
768.74(4), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2093, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3964, 1988 WL 91185
...nly. The appellant contends, first that the trial court should not have entered a remittitur. We find no error on this point. De la Vallina v. De la Vallina,
90 Fla. 905 ,
107 So. 339 (1926); Cohen v. Margoa, Inc.,
281 So.2d 406 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); .Section
768.74 Florida Statutes (1987). The appellant secondly contends that the trial court erred in not giving him the option of accepting the remittitur or having a new trial limited to the issue of damages. We agree. Bom v. Goldstein,
450 So.2d 262 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Section
768.74 Florida Statutes (1987)....
CopyPublished | District Court, M.D. Florida
...as not the prevailing party); Buckner v. Franco, Inc. ,
178 F.3d 1293 (6th Cir. 1999) (unpublished) (affirming jury verdict that found plaintiff was sexually harassed but awarded no damages). Ms. Rodriguez also argues an additur is appropriate under Section
768.74, Florida Statutes, which permits courts to order additurs in negligence actions under Florida law. (Doc. 145, pp. 4-5). Ms. Rodriguez cited no authority to support her argument that Section
768.74 applies in employment actions based on federal statutes. Federal law applies in cases arising from federal statutes. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins ,
304 U.S. 64 , 78,
58 S.Ct. 817 ,
82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938) ; see also Myers v. Cent. Fla. Inv. ,
592 F.3d 1201 , 1212 (11th Cir. 2010) (applying Section
768.74 to compensatory awards on state law claims)....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 13807
...The Court further finds that the amount awarded is not
supported by the evidence and could not be adduced in a
logical manner by reasonable persons and after carefully
3
considering the criteria set forth in Section 768.74(5), finds
the noneconomic damages were excessive and should be
remitted.
In total, the trial court granted remittitur in the amount of $996,000 as
follows:
Category Jury Award Amount After Re...
...Finally,
Security contends that the comparison of the total pain and suffering jury
award in this case with the pain and suffering awards in three other
Florida cases and four out-of-state cases, as argued to the trial court,
establishes the reasonableness of the trial court’s decision on remittitur.
Section 768.74, Florida Statutes (2013), sets forth the factors for a
court to consider when determining whether to grant a remittitur. Section
768.74(5) states:
6
(5) In determining whether an award is excessive or
inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances presented
to the trier of fact and in determining the amount,...
...a reasonable relation
to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered; and
(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.
§ 768.74(5), Fla....
...4th DCA 1991) (explaining that an order
granting remittitur but failing to explain the reasons for the amount of the
remittitur rendered the order “deficient,” citing Wackenhut and Zambrano).
Moreover, an order which “contains an incantation of conclusory
statements,” and merely tracks the language of section 768.74 as reasons
for the reduction and does not explain what in the record supports its
conclusion for the need and the amount of remittitur is likewise “deficient.”
7
Zambrano, 484 So....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 14923, 2015 WL 5836043
...Blake of Marlowe J.
Blake, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
In this sex discrimination and retaliation case, we reverse the $700,000
award of non-economic damages as excessive. See City of Hollywood v.
Hogan,
986 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); see also §
768.74(5), Fla. Stat.
(2013). We remand for the trial court to determine a remittitur amount,
or to order a new trial on non-economic damages if the party adversely
affected by the remittitur does not agree to the remitted amount. See §
768.74(4), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 17666, 2014 WL 5462520
...$ ________
After a week-long trial, on May 21, 2012, the jury returned a verdict,
answering “Yes” to question one. It awarded damages to Bombardier in the
amount of $51,000.
E. Post-Trial Motions
Pursuant to section 768.74, Florida Statutes (2012)9, Bombardier filed post-
trial motions: (1) for additur or for a new trial on damages, (2) to set aside the
9 Section 768.74, Florida Statutes (2012), provides, in pertinent part:
(1) In any action to which this part applies wherein the trier of fact
determines that liability exists on the part of the defendant and a
verdict is re...
...had “no correlation to any
reasonable evidence presented by any party”; (4) there “is no way to rationalize or
reconcile the verdict amount,” and (5) Bombardier was entitled to judgment in the
amount of $1,128.062.18.10
Pursuant to section 768.74(4), Florida Statutes (2012), the trial court allowed
Farm Stores seven days to advise whether Farm Stores accepted the additur....
...omatic
renewals for prefabs 5, 6, and 7, through May 1, 2012, and interest through May
14, 2012 (the first day of trial), resulting in a total damage figure of $1,128,062.18.
2. New Trial on Liability and Damages
Pursuant to section 768.74(4), Florida Statutes (2012), if the party adversely
affected by an additur does not agree to the additur, “ the court shall order a new
trial in the cause on the issue of damages only.” (emphasis added).
However, a new tr...
... issues of liability and damages on the verdict form [is] suggestive of compromise.”
Westminster Cmty. Care Servs., Inc. v. Mikesell,
12 So. 3d 838, 841-42 (Fla. 5th
DCA 2009); Food Lion v. Jackson,
712 So. 2d 800, 803 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
(recognizing that section
768.74 “instructs that the adverse party be given the
choice of accepting the amount of additur or a new trial on damages only,” and
holding that a new trial on the issue of liability also should be ordered if liability
was hotly conte...
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...they must do this within the bounds of
reason.” Bartholf v. Baker,
71 So. 2d 480, 484 (Fla. 1954) (quoting Virginian
Ry. Co. v. Armentrout,
166 F.2d 400, 408 (4th Cir. 1948)). Thus, awards of
damages are “subject to close scrutiny by the courts.” §
768.74(3), Fla. Stat
(2021).
To this end, section
768.74, Florida Statutes, authorizes remittitur in
cases where the trial court determines an award of damages is “excessive
....
...relation to the amount of damages proved and the
injury suffered; and
(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.
§ 768.74(5), Fla....
...aining statutory criteria.
Under our precedent, this procedural oversight constitutes reversible error.
See Spearman,
320 So. 3d at 288. Thus, we reverse the judgment and
remand for reconsideration of the motion for remittitur in accordance with
section
768.74(5), Florida Statutes.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded.
3
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 16761
...f his premature death from lung cancer” was improper because it was “nothing more than a thinly veiled invitation for the jury to lavishly compensate Appellee for the death of her husband simply because [the defendant] could afford to do so”). Section 768.74(3), Florida Statutes (2016), requires the court to subject a damage award to “close scrutiny.” One of the criteria that the court must consider is “[w]hether the trier of fact took improper elements of damages into account or arrived at the amount of damages by speculation and conjecture[.]” § 768.74(5)(c), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 16577, 2015 WL 6735297
...3d DCA 2013).
Pursuant to Florida's remittitur and additur statute, the trial court has
the responsibility to review the amount of an award and determine if it is
excessive or inadequate “in light of the facts and circumstances which were
presented to the trier of fact.” § 768.74(1), Fla. Stat. (2012). “If the court
finds that the amount awarded is excessive or inadequate, it shall order a
remittitur or additur, as the case may be.” § 768.74(2), Fla....
...amount of damages proved and the injury suffered; and
(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.
4
§ 768.74(5), Fla....
...Plaintiff’s counsel begged the jury
not to award her more than $25 million in punitive damages and the trial
court found that there was “no logical or sound reason for the jury to have
exceeded the award sought by counsel for Plaintiff.” This finding in and of
itself compels remittitur. See § 768.74(5)(e), Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 14544, 1999 WL 992704
...ce and could not have been adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons. (The error occurred when the jury changed the present value of future damages from $37,500 to $50,-000.) The court should, therefore, have ordered a remittitur pursuant to section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1997)....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
... of any comparative negligence by Rodgers. The City asserted that
counsel for Rodgers made the issue confusing for the jury, as
evidenced by the jury questions. The City also sought remittitur
claiming that the non-economic damages award was excessive. See
§ 768.74(3), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2017 WL 2200224, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 7180
...The Estate argues that the new trial should be limited to determining only damages, while Nursing Home asserts that the new trial should address the issues of liability, causation, and damages. The Estate’s motion for additur-or new trial was based upon section 768.74, Florida Statutes (201-5), which provides in part: (1) In any action to which this part applies , wherein the trier of fact , determines that liability exists on the part of the defendant and a verdict is rendered which awards money da...
...t of the facts and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact. [[Image here]] (4) 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. § 768.74(1)&(4), Fla. Stat. (2015) (emphasis added). The Estate argues that because the jury found liability, this case fits squarely within section 768.74, even though the trial court determined that the money damages awarded by the jury were inadequate....
...rise to a suggestion that the jury may have compromised its verdict.” Id. In Broward County School Board v. Dombrosky,
579 So.2d 748, 749 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), the injured plaintiff raised the same argument that the Estate offers here, namely that section
768.74 limits any new trial to damages alone....
...to [the plaintiff.]” Id. at 750 . Likewise, in Food Lion , after finding “a strong indication of compromise on the issue of liability,” this court ordered a new trial on liability and damages.
712 So.2d at 803 . In doing so, we recognized that section
768.74 permits the party to choose between “the amount of additur or a new trial on damages only.” Id....
...More recently, this court observed in Westminster Community Care Services, Inc. v. Mikesell,
12 So.3d 838, 841-42 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009), that: A line of decisions rendered by the district courts, including this court, hold that despite the limiting provision in section
768.74(4), when a jury award is inadequate and an additur is necessary to correct the inadequacy, a new trial on the issues of liability and damages is appropriate when the liability issue was hotly contested by the parties, (emphasis added) (citations omitted); accord REWJB Dairy Plant v....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...surgery” would not exceed $75,000.
As the amount of damages awarded for future medical expenses bears
no reasonable relationship to the damages proved, we reverse the court’s
judgment and remand for reconsideration of the motion for remittitur in
accordance with section 768.74, Florida Statutes....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 4183, 2010 WL 1222925
...will not be discussed in any detail. Following the jury's verdict, TGH filed five motions. First, it filed a motion for remittitur, seeking to enforce the limitation of liability in section
766.209(4). Second, it filed a motion for remittitur under section
768.74, Florida Statutes (2003)....
...As to the motions for remittitur, consistent with our ruling in section II of this opinion, we must hold that the award to the father cannot exceed $350,000. The closer question is whether the trial court should now be given renewed discretion to award an amount less than $350,000 under section 768.74....
...justify a different award; we have nearly the same vantage point as the trial judge on this issue. Third, pain and suffering is inherently a difficult element to measure, and it is a difficult element to reassess under the guidelines established in section 768.74(5)....
...ood reason. Such decisions by juries are entitled to a level of credence and respect by the judiciary. We are not convinced that a remittitur of this $4,000,000 award to an amount below $350,000 would fulfill the Legislature's express recognition in section 768.74(6) that "the reasonable actions of a jury are a fundamental precept of American jurisprudence and that such actions should be disturbed or modified with caution and discretion." Accordingly, on remand, we require the trial court to enter judgment in favor of Mr....
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
...Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc.,
437 F.3d 1112, 1117
(11th Cir. 2006) (looking to Florida law to determine whether a compensatory damages award
was excessive).
11
Case: 18-13045 Date Filed: 03/24/2020 Page: 12 of 31
(quoting Fla. Stat. §
768.74(1))....
...fundamental precept of American
jurisprudence, requiring a court to review the damages award “provides an
additional element of soundness and logic to our judicial system and is in the best
interests of the citizens of this state.” Fla. Stat. § 768.74(6). Florida law requires
that when a court “finds that the amount awarded is excessive . . . it shall order a
remittitur.” Id. § 768.74(2).
In determining whether an award is excessive or inadequate in light of the
facts and circumstances presented to the trier of fact, the court shall consider the
following criteria:
(a) Whether the amount awarded is indica...
...rs a reasonable relation to the
amount of damages proved and the injury suffered; and
(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.
Id. § 768.74(5)....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...onable
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. *
“Section
768.74 did not alter the ‘longstanding principles’ governing a trial
court’s deference to a jury’s assessment of damages.” Aurbach v....
...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 ....
...ial court erred in “vetoing” the verdict by
granting a motion for additur. However, this argument ignores the Supreme
Court’s analysis in Poole. While recognizing that “the standard of review for an
additur or remittitur based on section [768.74] focuses on the reasonableness of the
jury’s actions in light of the record,” the Poole court concluded that the only issue
before it was the propriety of an order granting new trial, rather than the propriety
of the additur itself: “...
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...Co.,
549 So. 2d 1380, 1382 (Fla. 1989)).
When considering a motion for remittitur, the court must determine
whether the amount of a damages award “is excessive . . . in light of the
facts and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact.” §
768.74(1), Fla....
...to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered; and
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.
§ 768.74(5)(a)–(e), Fla....
...vings about the evidence and the
jury’s verdict, the jury’s verdict was supported by competent substantial
evidence, and the circuit court lacked competent substantial evidence to
support its finding that the jury’s verdict violated any of the section
768.74(1) factors.
Fernalld asked for hundreds of thousands of dollars from the jury for
his defamation claim....
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Argued: Jan 25, 2023
...9 Here, there is no dispute that Florida supplies the relevant state law.
USCA11 Case: 20-13954 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 06/05/2023 Page: 13 of 23
20-13954 Opinion of the Court 13
Fla. Stat. § 768.74(1)....
...d and the in-
jury suffered; and
(e) Whether the amount awarded is supported by the
evidence and is such that it could be adduced in a log-
ical manner by reasonable persons.
Id. § 768.74(5).
When reviewing a jury’s damages award under § 786.74, we
must bear in mind that “assessing the amount of damages is within
10 Florida law requires a court to review whether a damages award is exces-...
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 2261502, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 8127
...Although the jury did not find the surety liable on the bond, it found liability on Morgado for breach of contract. Even though CB presented evidence of damages between $600,000 and $800,000, the jury awarded only $30,000 in damages. CB moved for additur or new trial regarding the jury's award. Section
768.74, Florida Statutes, governs additur and applies "to any action for damages, whether in tort or in contract." §
768.71(1), Fla. Stat. (2006). Section
768.74(1) provides that in an action resulting in a verdict for money damages to the plaintiff, it shall be the responsibility of the court, upon proper motion, to review the amount of such award to determine if such amount is . . . inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact. Section
768.74(5) directs courts to consider various factors including: (a) Whether the amount awarded is indicative of prejudice, passion, or corruption on the part of the trier of fact; (b) Whether it appears that the trier of fact ignored the evid...
...t awarded is supported by the evidence and is such that it could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons. Accordingly, "[i]f the court finds that the amount awarded is . . . inadequate, it shall order . . . additur, as the case may be." § 768.74(2), Fla....
...We applied these criteria in Silverman v. Gockman,
714 So.2d 671 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), and found that a jury award of $250,000 in a medical malpractice claim where the evidence proved $520,975.65 in damages was inadequate, pointing out that the trial court had overlooked section
768.74(5)(d), which provides that the amount awarded should bear a reasonable relation to the damages proved....
...se it bears no reasonable relation to the damages proved. There is no logical explanation as to how reasonable persons . . . ended up awarding only 16% of the damages claimed. The court concluded that an additur should have been granted, pursuant to section 768.74....
...However, it offered no proof of the amount of damages caused by the substandard workforce. Notwithstanding Morgado's explanation, the jury's $30,000 damages award does not "bear[] a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered." § 768.74(5)(d), Fla. Stat. The jury awarded only 4% of that proved by CB. In addition, the $30,000 damages award appears to have been "arrived at . . . by speculation and conjecture." § 768.74(5)(c), Fla....
...Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant CB's motion for additur or, in the alternative, a new trial. We reverse for the trial court to order an additur and, should Morgado refuse to accept, for a new trial on damages. See § 768.74(4), Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2015 WL 3796282, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79980
...However, even in such a cáse, the plaintiff may persuade the court that the facts and circumstances of the case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, justify a higher ratio. Here, the ratio does not come close to the presumptive excess limit. Therefore, we proceed to analyze the reasonableness of the award under § 768.74(5). Section 768.74(5) sets out criteria to assess the reasonableness of a punitive damages award....
...r conjecture; (4) the award bears a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered; and, (5) the. award is supported by the evidence and is one that, could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons, Fla. Stat. §
768.74 (5); see also Myers,
592 F.3d at 1215 (stating that a trial court must consider the factors set out in §
768.74(5) when assessing the excessiveness of a punitive award). The §
768.74(5) inquiry must be conducted to ensure that “the manifest weight of the evidence does not render the amount of punitive damages assessed out ,of all reasonable proportion to the malice, outrage,' or wantonness of the tortious conduct.” Id. (citing Engle v. Liggett Grp., Inc.,
945 So.2d 1246, 1263 (Fla.2006)). The award must also be reviewed to determine that it bears some relationship to the defendant’s ability to pay. Id. (citations omitted). Section
768.74 did not displace Florida’s longstanding deference to a jury’s damages assessment....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...This appeal followed.
Appellate courts “review orders of remittitur for an abuse of discretion.”
Adams v. Saavedra,
65 So. 3d 1185, 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). If the trial
court finds that the amount awarded to a plaintiff is excessive, it may order
a remittitur. See §
768.74(2), Fla....
...(2017). In determining whether
an award is excessive, the court must consider, among other things,
“[w]hether the trier of fact took improper elements of damages into
account” and “[w]hether the amount awarded is supported by the
evidence.” § 768.74(5), Fla....
...The latter amount was the amount
of past medical expenses submitted to the jury for their deliberation. The
fact this award exceeded the amount of the bills in evidence showed that
the jury “took improper elements of damages” into account and that the
award was not “supported by the evidence.” § 768.74(5), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...This appeal followed.
Appellate courts “review orders of remittitur for an abuse of discretion.”
Adams v. Saavedra,
65 So. 3d 1185, 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). If the trial
court finds that the amount awarded to a plaintiff is excessive, it may order
a remittitur. See §
768.74(2), Fla....
...(2017). In determining whether
an award is excessive, the court must consider, among other things,
“[w]hether the trier of fact took improper elements of damages into
account” and “[w]hether the amount awarded is supported by the
evidence.” § 768.74(5), Fla....
...The latter amount was the amount
of past medical expenses submitted to the jury for their deliberation. The
fact this award exceeded the amount of the bills in evidence showed that
the jury “took improper elements of damages” into account and that the
award was not “supported by the evidence.” § 768.74(5), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 310, 2016 WL 81661
...■ Appellant also challenges the use of ad-ditur to correct the verdict. It urges that additur is not permitted in eminent domain proceedings, citing Bennett v. Jacksonville Expressway Authority,
131 So.2d 740 (Fla.1961). As Appellees argue, Bennett was decided prior to the enactment of section
768.74(1), Florida Statutes (2014), which authorizes the use of additur in “any action to which this part applies.” Section
768.71(1), provides that sections
768.71 through
768.81, Florida Statutes, are applicable to “any action for dam...
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida
...damages award.
A. Florida law requires a reasonable relationship between
punitive damages and the amount of damages proved and the
injury suffered.
The rephased question implicates two statutes, sections
768.73 and
768.74, Florida Statutes (1997), that govern review of
the punitive damages award at issue. 3 Therefore, we begin with
3. Since 1997, the first statute, section
768.73, has been
substantially amended. See §
768.73, Fla. Stat. (2021). The second
statute, section
768.74, remains the same. See §
768.74, Fla....
...-7-
in light of the facts and circumstances which were
presented to the trier of fact.
(c) This subsection is not intended to prohibit an
appropriate court from exercising its jurisdiction under s.
768.74 in determining the reasonableness of an award of
punitive damages that is less than three times the
amount of compensatory damages.
§
768.73(1)(a)-(c).
Second, section
768.74, Florida Statutes (1997), which is
Florida’s remittitur and additur statute, requires the trial court,
upon a proper motion, to review an award of money damages “to
determine if [the] amount is excessive . . . in light of the facts and
circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact,” §
768.74(1), and to “order a remittitur” if it “finds that the amount
awarded is excessive,” §
768.74(2)....
...The statute establishes five
“criteria” that the trial court “shall consider” “[i]n determining
whether an award is excessive . . . 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 range.” §
768.74(5)....
...The rephrased certified question implicates the fourth of
these five criteria, which requires the trial court to consider
-8-
“[w]hether the amount awarded bears a reasonable relation to the
amount of damages proved and the injury suffered.” §
768.74(5)(d).
Reading these statutes together, unless the “facts and
circumstances” exception of section
768.73(1)(b) applies, section
768.73(1)(a) caps an award of punitive damages in comparison to
the compensatory damages award at a ratio of 3:1, and section
768.74 provides for further review of an award that is challenged as
excessive, regardless of whether the award falls inside or outside of
the 3:1 cap....
...the “facts and circumstances” allow a punitive damages award to
exceed the 3:1 presumptive cap of section
768.73(1)(a), that is not
the end of the analysis. See Coates,
308 So. 3d at 1073. Rather,
the trial court must review the challenged award for excessiveness
under section
768.74. See id.; see also §
768.74(3), Fla....
...is added); Guarino v.
Armstrong World Indus., Inc., No. 88-1087-CIV-MARCUS,
1989 WL
265218, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 13, 1989) (describing section
768.73(1)(a) as imposing a cap on punitive damages and section
-9-
768.74(2) as providing “a further check upon the imposition of
excessive punitive damages”).
When a trial court reviews an award of punitive damages
under section
768.74, the statute plainly requires that the amount
awarded must “bear[] a reasonable relation to the amount of
damages proved and the injury suffered.” §
768.74(5)(d). This
requirement is one of the five “criteria” that the trial court “shall
consider” in determining whether a damages award is excessive, §
768.74(5)(d), and is therefore a condition that must be met for the
award to stand....
...edent recognizes
that a punitive damage award must bear a reasonable relationship
to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered.
Specifically, in Schoeff,
232 So. 3d at 308, we applied section
- 10 -
768.74(5) to “evaluate a denial of remittitur for abuse of discretion,”
and identified the compensatory damages award as relevant to the
statutory inquiry, explaining that “[p]unitive damages must also be
reviewed alongside compensatory damages ‘to ensure a reasonable
relationship between the two.’ ” Id....
...Liggett Grp.,
Inc.,
945 So. 2d 1246, 1264 (Fla. 2006)).
B. The rule is no different in a wrongful death action.
Given the clarity of both the statutory text and our precedent,
it is not surprising that Ms. Coates acknowledges that sections
768.73 and
768.74 make relevant a comparison between punitive
and compensatory damages....
...Accordingly, because the Wrongful Death Act remedies
injuries suffered “for the living and not for the dead,” Martin v.
United Sec. Servs., Inc.,
314 So. 2d 765, 769 (Fla. 1975), we cannot
conclude, for purposes of evaluating a punitive damages award in a
wrongful death action under section
768.74(5)(d), that the
decedent’s death is “the injury suffered.” See §
768.20, Fla....
...In so holding, we reiterate that the rephrased question is
limited to the facts of this case where the compensatory damages
award reflects the damages proved and the legally cognizable injury
suffered by the statutory beneficiaries. Therefore, we need not
reach RJR’s argument that section 768.74(5)(d), on its face and as
interpreted by this Court in Schoeff, should be read to require
remittitur of a punitive damages award based solely on the ratio of
punitive to compensatory damages, without regard to the injury
suffered....
... Although we cannot say it was unreasonable to conclude that
the facts and circumstances support departing from the 3:1 cap of
section
768.73(1), see Coates,
308 So. 3d at 1073, as we have
explained above, that is not the end of the inquiry. Rather, section
768.74(5)(d) imposes a further check against an excessive punitive
damages award that turns on “[w]hether the amount awarded bears
a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the
injury suffered.” Looking to the undisput...
...3d at 1076 (collecting tobacco cases with punitive
damages awards of $20 million or more). However, the statutory
analysis of whether a punitive damages award bears a reasonable
relation to the amount of damages proven and the injury suffered is
necessarily case-specific. See § 768.74(5)(d)....
...ordered whenever the ratio of punitive damages to compensatory
damages exceeds the ratio of 3:1.
To arrive at its conclusion that the jury’s punitive damages
award was excessive in this case, the majority relies on a strained
interpretation of one of five factors set forth in section 768.74(5),
Florida Statutes (1997), and it concludes that no reasonable court
could have found that the punitive damages award bears a
reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury
suffered....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
... remit the future damages award to zero. The trial court denied the
amended motion for leave to amend and remitted Mr. Schnurr’s future
medical expenses to $5,782,811, finding that amount was supported by
the trial testimony and the evidence. In doing so, the trial court noted that
section 768.74 requires a trial court to determine whether a damage award
is excessive “in light of the facts and circumstances which were presented
to the trier of fact.”
After the trial court’s order, JLPOA filed an objection to entry of...
...7
into the surroundings. Rather than ameliorating the danger, JLPOA
appeared to make it worse.
II. Remittitur
JLPOA argues that the trial court erred by denying its motion for new
trial on future medical expenses because section 768.74(4) requires a new
trial on damages when the “adversely affected” party “does not agree” to
remittitur....
...The Schnurrs respond that the trial court did not err because
remittitur cannot be used to reduce the award based on events that occur
after trial.
We find that the trial court erred in denying the motion for new trial for
several reasons. First, the trial court did not comply with the plain
language of section 768.74(4), which states that the trial court shall order
a new trial if the adversely affected party does not agree to remittitur.
Second, there was no meeting of the minds because JLPOA withdrew its
request to remit the award to $5.7 million...
...atutory
construction.” Id.
On a motion for remittitur, the trial court must “review the amount of
such award to determine if such amount is excessive . . . in light of the
facts and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact.” §
768.74(1), Fla. Stat. (2019). “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.” § 768.74(4), Fla....
...manifested by this appeal.” Id.
Similarly, the court in Shalhub v. Andrews Roofing & Improvement Co.,
530 So. 2d 1052, 1053 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), found no error in the trial court
entering a remittitur. However, the Third District found, based on section
768.74, that “the trial court erred in not giving [the appellant] the option
of accepting the remittitur or having a new trial limited to the issue of
damages.” Id.
Like in Concept and Shalhub, here the trial court erred by not following
the plain language of section
768.74 because JLPOA did not agree to
remittitur both before and after the trial court ruled on the remittitur
amount....
...presented to the trier of fact, it is also true that once the trial court
determined that amount was excessive, and the party adversely affected
by the remittitur does not agree, then the trial court “shall” order a new
trial on the issue of damages. See § 768.74(4), Fla....
...ruled and granted the remittitur. JLPOA had the right to withdraw its
initial proposal, especially when it was belatedly informed of Mr. Schnurr’s
death. In fact, a party can simply not agree to the remittitur amount for
any reason. The statutory language of section 768.74 does not limit the
grounds for a party’s acceptance or rejection of remittitur....
...Conversely, the
record appears to demonstrate that the Schnurrs’ counsel did not agree to
the remittitur until after Mr. Schnurr’s death. JLPOA was entitled to
withdraw its initial motion for remittitur in these circumstances and
require the trial court to adhere to the dictates of section 768.74.
There was never a meeting of minds, not only because JLPOA did not
agree, but also because the Schnurrs’ counsel was not capable of agreeing
on Mr....
...would affirm the order on remittitur, as JLPOA was not the adversely
affected party entitled to challenge the order on appeal. JLPOA received
exactly the relief it was entitled to receive under the statute.
Post-verdict, JLPOA moved for a new trial, as well as remittitur
pursuant to section 768.74, Florida Statutes (2019)....
...But the motions, including
remittitur, must comport with the law.
A remittitur requires that the court review the evidence to determine
whether the verdict is excessive or inadequate in light of the facts and
circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact. § 768.74(1), Fla.
Stat....
... The amended motion did not rely on any facts and circumstances
presented to the trier of fact to justify a remittitur. It relied on Mr.
Schnurr’s subsequent death to request a remittitur to zero. Because the
motion was legally insufficient to claim remittitur under section 768.74,
the court appropriately denied the motion.
As the trial court remitted the future medical expenses to exactly what
was requested by JLPOA in its only legally sufficient motion, JLPOA cannot
be considered the adversely affected party complaining about the amount
of the remittitur....
...eing made, the amount the movant contends the verdict
should be, and the specific evidence that supports the amount stated or a statement of the improper
elements of damages included in the damages award.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.535 (emphasis added).
2 Section 768.74(4), Florida Statutes (2019), provides: “[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.” (emphasis added).
15
which that value was calculated....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...Smith,
239 So. 2d 13, 14 (Fla.
1970), and here, the amount awarded by the jury bore “a reasonable relation
to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered” and was “such
that it could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons,” §
768.74(5)(d),(e), Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21140, 2016 WL 695972
...201 at 4) Under Florida law, “the manifest weight of the evidence [must] not render the amount of-punitive damages assessed out of all reasonable proportion to the malice, outrage, or wantonness of the tor-tious conduct.” 5 Engle v. Liggett Grp., Inc.,
945 So.2d 1246, 1263 (Fla.2006). Section
768.74, - Florida Statutes, lists considerations “[i]n determining whether an award is excessive or inadequate”: (a) Whether the amount awarded is indicative of prejudice, passion, or corruption on the part of the trier of fact; (b) Wheth...
...injury suffered; and (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. Arguing that the amount of punitive damages is not ‘.‘supported by the evidence” (Section 768.74(e)), Giant repeats arguments rejected in resolving Giant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. The arguments are again rejected. Arguing that the jury “either ignored or misperceived the largely uncontroverted evidence” (Section 768.74(b)), Giant claims that in awarding the punitive damages the jury failed to consider Giant’s extending “generous pricing and payment incentives” to Flying Fish....
...nly to induce Flying Fish to buy from Giant— to rely to Flying Fish’s detriment on Giant’s misrepresentations. Giant’s argument is rejected. Giant argues, that the ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages is the result of prejudice (Section 768.74(a)) and speculation (Section 768.74(c)). Also, Giant argues that “the award does not bear any (let alone a reasonable) relation to the amount of damages allegedly suffered by Flying Fish” (Section 768.74(c))....
...I played things very cool, remained *975 calm and [Kane] is all BARK and no BITE as I suspected.”)) Thus, under Section
768.73(l)(c), the jury removed the limit on punitive damages and awarded an amount that is twelve times the compensatory damages. The five considerations in Section
768.74 certify that the amount of punitive damages is neither excessive nor inadequate....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 38842
...Hackman for mental anguish and other intangible damages. We reverse the award on two items of special damage: $30,000 in attorneys' fees and $6,500 for renovations to the Hackmans' home. On remand, the trial court shall enter an order of remittitur pursuant to section 768.74, Florida Statutes (Supp.1986), reducing the award of attorneys' fees consistent with this opinion....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
So. 3d 1059, 1072 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). Section
768.74, Florida Statutes (2023), provides that a trial
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 1332, 1992 WL 26487
...*1198 We reverse, however, and remand this case for a new trial on all issues of damages. The trial court apparently concluded that the jury failed to award appellee adequate damages. Thereupon, it sua sponte ordered an additur in the amount of $6,500, or in the alternative, a new trial on damages. Section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1987), permits a trial court “......
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 6635745, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 19913
...udgment for a total $28.6 million in damages. RJR appeals the amended judgment, arguing that the trial court erred as a matter of law by failing to hold a new trial on damages after RJR objected to the remitted damage amounts. We agree, and reverse. Section 768.74, Florida Statutes, permits the trial court, upon a proper motion, to review damages awards “to determine if such amount is excessive or inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact.” § 768.74(1), Fla. Stat. (2007). The statute further provides that “[i]f the party ad *264 versely affected by such remittitur or ad-ditur does not agree, the court shall order a new trial in the cause on the issue of damages only.” § 768.74(4), Fla....
...only when the parties agree with the trial court’s amount of remittitur or addi-tur will the remittitur or additur be enforced in lieu of a new trial.” Id. at 1109 . Relying on Mora , we conclude RJR was the “party adversely affected” under section 768.74(4) because it objected to the trial court’s remittitur....
...Liggett Group, Inc.,
945 So.2d 1246 (Fla.2006). . Compare §
768.043(1), Fla. Stat., at issue in Mora ("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."), and §
768.74(4), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...an abuse of discretion standard. Ellender v. Bricker,
967 So. 2d 1088, 1092 (Fla. 2d
DCA 2007) (citing Allstate Ins. Co. v. Manasse,
707 So. 2d 1110, 1111 (Fla. 1998)).
In a negligence action, the consideration of a motion for additur is governed
by section
768.74, Florida Statutes (2020), which requires the court to determine
whether the amount of damages awarded by the jury is “inadequate in light of the
facts and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact.” If the amount
awarded is deemed inadequate, the court is charged with ordering additur. §
768.74(2), Fla....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida
...at 490.
The Fourth District also concluded that the $30 million punitive damages
award was unconstitutionally excessive in light of the $10.5 million compensatory
damages. Id. at 491. The decision further held that even if the punitive damages
were not unconstitutional, remittitur was necessary under section 768.74(5)(e),
Florida Statutes (2012), because Mrs. Schoeff had begged the jury not to award
more than $25 million and a larger award “could [not] be adduced in a logical
manner.” Id. at 491-92 (quoting § 768.74(5)(e))....
...ages award in this case was
unconstitutionally excessive.
II. Whether the Trial Court Properly Denied Remittitur of the Punitive
Damages
The Fourth District also held that remittitur was appropriate under section
768.74(5), Florida Statutes (2012), because Mrs....
...punitive damages for a personal tort unless the amount is unreasonable. Bould,
349 So. 2d at 1184-85. Florida’s remittitur and additur statute lists factors
important to the evaluation of a punitive award, including whether the amount can
be logically adduced by a reasonable jury. §
768.74(5)(a)-(e), Fla....
...1955)); see also Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Cuculino,
165 So. 3d 36, 39 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015).
In reviewing Mrs. Schoeff’s award, the trial court found that the award was
not influenced by undue passion or prejudice against the defendant, see section
768.74(5)(a), Florida Statutes, and found that the award did not warrant remittitur,
despite the fact that there was no reason for the jury to have ignored Mrs....
...to exceed Mrs. Schoeff’s request.
Schoeff,
178 So. 3d at 492-93. The Fourth District found that the award could not
“be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons” because the jury had
exceeded requested damages. Id. at 493 (quoting §
768.74(5)(e), Fla....
...See Braddock,
80 So. 2d at 662; Lopez, 406 So. 2d at
1256. Furthermore, the trial court only noted that the jury’s decision to exceed
requested damages was unreasonable, but did not find that the award could not be
adduced by a reasonable jury as section
768.74(5)(e), Florida Statutes, requires.
The trial court found the award free from undue prejudice. See §
768.74(5)(a), Fla.
- 25 -
Stat. There is no contention that the jury ignored evidence or misconceived the
merits of the case relating to damages. See §
768.74(5)(b), Fla. Stat. There is no
dispute that the damages in this case are based on evidence, not determined by
speculation or conjecture. See §
768.74(5)(c), Fla. Stat. At less than three times
the amount of the compensatory damages, the punitive damages also bear a
reasonable relationship to the injury. See §
768.74(5)(d), Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 9769, 1998 WL 438898
...nt 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 amount 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....
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 10965, 2001 WL 874222
...The court did not order a new trial on Burch’s claim for fraud in the inducement or for damages beyond the $234,000. Nor did the court order a new trial on the counterclaim for breach of contract brought by Alaqua Lakes. The trial court entered an order granting an additur or in the alternative a new trial, pursuant to section 768.74. 3 Section 768.74 provides factors to be taken into consideration in deciding whether to order an additur or remittitur, or in the alternative a new trial....
...3d DCA 2000) (jury verdict clearly inadequate and trial court erred in denying motion for additur, where jury found plaintiff 57% negligent, but only awarded plaintiff 16% of amount of damages shown by plaintiffs exhibits). Finally, Alaqua Lakes argues that the court failed to address the factors enumerated in subsection 768.74(5)....
...ed by Alaqua Lakes about halfway through its term. The wording of the two contracts differs slightly, but this seems to be of no moment with regard to the issues in this appeal. . Burch's first contract omitted the words "or engages in conduct.” . Section 768.74 provides in part: (1) In any action to which this part applies wherein the trier of fact determines that liability exists on the part of the defendant and a verdict is rendered which awards money damages to the plaintiff, it shall be t...
...(2) If the court finds that the amount awarded is excessive or inadequate, it shall order a remittitur or additur, as the case may be. (4) 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, (emphasis supplied) Section
768.74 is located in part II of chapter 768 and applies to "any action for damages, whether in tort or contract." §
768.71(1), Fla....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida
...the issue of damages only by filing a written election within 15 days
after the order granting remittitur or additur is filed.
Committee Notes
2019 Adoption. Subdivision (a) defines a “proper motion” as
referenced in section 768.74, Florida Statutes....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 13302, 2005 WL 2016829
PER CURIAM. As the appellee concedes, the lower court erred when it granted a new trial on damages alone, in this slip-and-fall case, without first granting a motion for additur. See Waxman v. Truman,
792 So.2d 657 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); §
768.74, Fla. Stat. (2004). Before a new trial on damages can be awarded, section
768.74, Florida Statutes, requires the trial court to “review the amount of such award to determine if such amount is excessive or inadequate” and if so, the court “shall order a remittitur or additur, as the case may be.” §
768.74(1), (2), Fla....
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Argued: Sep 21, 2023
...of $1.6 billion in five years. He explained that his financial model-
ing efforts constituted “informed guesswork.” D.E. 336 at 106.
9 Neither side has made any arguments about the damages award based on
Fla. Stat. §
768.74, so we do not discuss it. Compare Kerrivan,
953 F.3d at 1204–
08 (analyzing the alleged excessiveness of a compensatory damages award in
a claim governed by Florida law under the factors set out in §
768.74).
USCA11 Case: 22-12335 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 08/19/2024 Page: 27 of 36
22-12335 Opinion of the Court 27
Mr....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 3326306, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 13568
...in and suffering. On motion for remittitur or new trial, the trial court remitted her non-economic damages to $150,000 based upon the court’s finding that the plaintiffs evidence on pain and suffering was scant and not in support of such an award. Section 768.74, Florida Statutes, provides the criteria for determining exces-siveness or inadequacy of a verdict: (5) In determining whether an award is excessive or inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances presented to the trier of fact a...
...r that the court abused its discretion. The Legislature has vested trial courts with discretionary authority to review jury verdicts based upon set criteria in order to provide an additional measure of soundness and logic to the judicial system. See § 768.74(6), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 12150, 2016 WL 4252796
...That
amount included $45,000 for lost past earnings and $225,000 for lost future earning
capacity. Thereafter, Safeco unsuccessfully moved for a remittitur arguing, inter alia, that
the jury’s awards for past lost earnings and lost future earning capacity were not
supported by the evidence.
Section 768.74(1), Florida Statutes (2011), provides that in any action for
damages, whether in tort or in contract, where a verdict is rendered that awards damages
to a plaintiff, the court has a responsibility, upon proper motion, “to review th...
...inadequate in light of the facts
3
and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact.”2 Where the amount
awarded is excessive, a trial court is required to order a remittitur. § 768.74(2), Fla. Stat.
(2011). If the party adversely affected by the remittitur does not agree, a new trial shall
be ordered on the issue of damages only. § 768.74(4), Fla....
...of future earning capacity, but it is more difficult for him to show that he has suffered an
economic loss. Truelove v. Blount,
954 So. 2d 1284, 1288 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). Safeco
properly concedes that the evidence would support an award of past lost income for the
2 Section
768.74(5), Florida Statutes (2011), provides:
(5) In determining whether an award is excessive or
inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances presented
to the trier of fact and in determ...
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 3469, 1995 WL 144259
...Second, the defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial and/or a remittitur where the verdict was so excessive as to indicate that the jury was influenced by passion, prejudice, or improper motive. § 768.74, Fla.Stat....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida
failed to consider the factors set forth in section
768.74(5) of the Florida Statutes, as it was required
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida
...damages only by
filing a written election within 15 days after the order granting remittitur or additur
is filed.
Committee Notes
2019 Adoption. Subdivision (a) defines a “proper motion” as referenced in
section 768.74, Florida Statutes....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 5042, 2004 WL 784505
...“A new trial may be ordered on the grounds that the verdict is excessive or inadequate when (1) the verdict shocks the judicial conscience or (2) the jury has been unduly influenced by passion or prejudice.” Brown v. Estate of Stuckey,
749 So.2d 490, 498 (Fla.1999). Section
768.74, Florida Statutes (2003), vests the trial judge with “discretionary authority” to review the award for inadequacy or excessiveness and lists several factors for consideration....
