Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...In addition to the fact that section 768.50(2)(b) addressed collateral sources of indemnity, and not medical malpractice, that statute was repealed in 1986. See ch. 86-160, § 68, Laws of Fla. The current collateral source statute does not contain the definition on which Southwest now relies. See § 768.77, Fla....

...on the issue of permanency, then you should also consider the following elements." Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Civ.) 6.1. [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. Stat. (1993). Section 768.77 was part of the Tort Reform and Insurance Act, which became effective in 1986....

...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). From a review of the appellate cases decided subsequent to the enactment of section 768.77, it appears that the most frequent source of review is the zero damages award rendered by a jury for noneconomic damages.

...That statute was part of the Tort Reform and Insurance Act of 1986 (TRIA), [7] and newly imposed on trial judges a clear responsibility to review the amount of damages awarded by a jury. [8] To enable the trial *268 judge to make this review of damages, at the same time the legislature also created in section 768.77 a companion provision for mandatory itemized verdicts....

...ost wages and, loss of earning capacity." [2] We do not agree with Judge Farmer that an itemized verdict is required in order to preserve appellate review of a trial court's denial of additur or remittitur. The statute requiring an itemized verdict, section 768.77, does not require that economic losses be separated into medical expenses or lost income....

...(2) Each category of damages, other than punitive damages, shall be further itemized into amounts intended to compensate for losses which have been incurred prior to the verdict and into amounts intended to compensate for losses to be incurred in the future." [10] The Legislature has since amended section 768.77 by deleting subsection (2)....

...low the injured party not to end up in debt from the accident. [14] Before the adoption of statutory itemized verdict forms, general verdicts were the rule and itemized verdicts were relatively rare in this state. In a number of cases decided before section 768.77 was adopted involving the same circumstance—a verdict appearing to award all medical expenses but nothing for intangible losses for pain—the courts had routinely indulged the presumption that a general verdict equal to the medical expenses established by the evidence is in fact an award only of medical expenses....

...orm, the result was not patently inconsistent. In such circumstances, it was not illogical to permit a posttrial challenge to the substance of a verdict in the absence of a prior challenge to the verdict's procedural accuracy. Since the enactment of section 768.77, Florida Statutes (1991), most tort cases are now submitted to the jury with an interrogatory verdict form that usually causes a zero verdict to be both inconsistent and inadequate....

...s or entities among whom the jury may apportion fault. This will permit the trial court to allocate damages, determine set-offs, *850 if appropriate, and facilitate appellate review. 2. DAMAGES INTRODUCTORY COMMENT In 1986, the legislature adopted F.S. 768.77 which required separate determinations by the trier of fact of economic damages, noneconomic damages, and punitive damages, and further required designation of those damages which occurred prior to the verdict, as well as those amounts intended to compensate for losses to be incurred in the future....

...768.78, adopted at the same time, provided for alternative methods of payment of damage awards when "the trier of fact" makes an award to compensate for future economic damages in excess of $250,000. Effective October 1, 1999, the legislature substantially amended those provisions. F.S. 768.77 was amended to delete the requirements that required designation of past or future damages, itemization of future damages both before and after reduction to present value, and a determination of the period of years over which future damages are intended to provide compensation. Under the 1999 amendment to F.S. 768.77(1), damages for all non-medical negligence cases only have to be segregated into economic losses, noneconomic losses, and punitive damages. F.S. 768.77(2), however, requires further itemization for medical negligence cases....

...encroaching upon the authority of the Florida Supreme Court, the legislature requested a rule change under the provisions of Art. V, § 2, of the Florida Constitution consistent with the statutes. No court opinion has expressly determined whether F.S. 768.77 or 768.78 is constitutional under the provisions of Art. II, § 3, of the Florida Constitution. The committee drafted Model Verdict Forms 2(a) and 2(b) to comply with the minimum requirements of the 1999 amendments to F.S. 768.77(1)....

...Depending on the evidence presented, certain elements of damages may be considered economic, noneconomic, or a mixture of both, thus requiring appropriate modification of the verdict form. For verdict requirements in medical negligence claims, see F.S. 768.77(2) and 768.78(2)(a)....

..., surroundings, and earnings before and after the injury. Atlantic Coast Line R.R. v. Ganey, 125 So.2d 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960). Once an amount is determined, a jury is required to reduce any award for loss of future earning capacity to present value. Section 768.77, Florida Statutes (1993); Townsend v....

...This yearly figure, which was not reduced to present value, is impermissibly high in that it is substantially greater than the yearly income plaintiff earned prior to his injury. The trial court properly instructed the jury that an award of future loss of earning capacity damages must be reduced to present value. Section 768.77, Florida Statutes (1993)....

...86-160, Laws of Fla. 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)....

...can make findings as to every element of every cause of action. Gonzalez also forewarns that any negligence verdict forms approved by the Florida supreme court, for use in conjunction with the Standard Instructions in Civil Cases, may be inadequate. Section 768.77, Florida Statutes (1987), which now requires an itemized verdict for categories of damages, does not also require an itemization of all negligence elements.

...that point. The second point on appeal, however, has merit. The tenant contends that the award of rent due for the balance of the term [*] must be reduced to present value. We agree. See Fountas v. Ziegler, 305 So.2d 864, 865-66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); § 768.77, Fla....

...new trial solely on the issue of past medicals and past loss of earnings. Van Dyke rejected the remittitur and now argues she is entitled to a new trial on all damages. [1] In this case the court submitted to the jury an itemized verdict pursuant to Section 768.77, Florida Statutes (1989)....

...Please answer Question 5. 5. What is the present value of any damages sustained by Plaintiff, SHIRLEY JACKSON, and caused by the incident in question? $ 2061.80 In using the above verdict form, the parties and trial court ignored the itemization requirements of section 768.77, Florida Statutes (1995); only one line was provided for a composite of all damages rather than setting forth separate amounts for past economic and non-economic losses, and future economic and non-economic losses....

...Food Lion first contends that Jackson's failure to request an itemized verdict requires reinstatement of the jury's verdict. We reject that argument in view of the opportunities given to all of the parties to complain about the noncompliance with the verdict form required by section 768.77....

...the jury answered one year. The attorneys below both agreed to the submission of these interrogatories concerning the period of time to be covered in regard to compensation for future losses because of the provisions of the Tort Reform Act of 1986, section 768.77....

...In itemizing amounts intended to compensate for future losses, the trier of fact shall set forth the period of years over which such amounts are intended to provide compensation. The Florida Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions (Civil) has attempted to interpret section 768.77 and formulate a verdict form to effectuate it....

...e, and characterized the Committee's recommendations "as a good faith effort to accommodate the legislature and the courts ..." It also commented, however, that its publication of the verdict form "does not imply any view of the constitutionality of section 768.77 under Art. II, sec. 3, Fla. Const." See In Re Standard Jury Instructions at 91. We note the Florida Supreme Court's intimation that section 768.77 represents an unconstitutional invasion by the Florida Legislature of the province of the judiciary, and that said section may be constitutionally invalid on its face and as applied....

...The purpose of an itemized verdict is to require the jury to determine specified factual issues. See Kriston, 688 So.2d at 347 ("When the legislature enacted the Tort Reform and Insurance Act of 1986, Chapter 86-160, Laws of Florida, it provided in section 768.77, Florida Statutes, that the trier of fact is to itemize the damage awards for economic and non-economic losses and to further itemize those losses into past and future categories.")....

...orm, the result was not patently inconsistent. In such circumstances, it was not illogical to permit a posttrial challenge to the substance of a verdict in the absence of a prior challenge to the verdict's procedural accuracy. Since the enactment of section 768.77, Florida Statutes (1991), most tort cases are now submitted to the jury with an interrogatory verdict form that usually causes a zero verdict to be both inconsistent and inadequate....

...he context of this particular case. Florida law requires only that the verdict form itemize damages to indicate the amounts intended to compensate the claimant for economic losses, non-economic losses, and punitive damages, if applicable. Fla. Stat. § 768.77(1)....

...We therefore reverse Lauren's claim for a new trial on damages, including the seat belt defense, and affirm Andrea's appeal. WARNER and PARIENTE, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] We sometimes wonder whether the 1986 tort reform legislation which requires itemized verdicts, § 768.77 Fla....

...This ruling is not challenged on appeal. [2] It is unclear whether the verdict was deemed inconsistent with the evidence or inconsistent because of no award for past pain and suffering, yet $250,000 for future pain and suffering. Regardless, both agreed it was "inconsistent." [3] See § 768.77, Fla....

...In the instant case, the expert's figures were already in present money value form. While the jury did not apply the correct working life of 14.1 years, we do not see how that impaired the verdict in this case. This case presents a classic example of why the requirements of section 768.77, Florida Statutes (1995), prescribing the use of itemized verdicts, are so unmanageable....

model-itemized verdict form, as contemplated- by section 768.77, Florida Statutes, refer- to Model Verdict

...d in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure Form 1.985, Standard Jury Instructions, the two model forms of itemized damage verdicts with a note on use and comments, entitled: MODEL FORM OF VERDICT ITEMIZING PERSONAL INJURY DAMAGES (TORT REFORM ACT OF 1986, § 768.77 F.S. 1987) and MODEL FORM OF VERDICT ITEMIZING WRONGFUL DEATH DAMAGES (TORT REFORM ACT OF 1986, § 768.77 F.S. 1987) The committee reports that its recommendation is the product of efforts by the committee, for more than a year, to devise a basic form of damage verdict that is both responsive to the requirements of sections 768.77 and 768.78, Florida Statutes (1987) (chapter 86-160, sections 56, 57, Laws of Florida), and conservative of the values, simplicity chief among these, that the bench and bar have long associated with general verdicts....

...We invited comments regarding the committee's recommendations and entertained oral argument on its request. Some legitimate concern has been expressed in demanding of a jury a calculation of reducing awards for future damages to present-day values. It has been suggested that we should ignore the provisions of sections 768.77 and 768.78 in structuring verdict forms because of a perceived legislative invasion of a judicial function....

...The new forms are attached to this opinion and will be effective immediately upon its filing. It is so ordered. EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur. *91 MODEL FORM OF VERDICT ITEMIZING PERSONAL INJURY DAMAGES (TORT REFORM ACT OF 1986, § 768.77 F.S....

...d to avoid the possibility of the jury adding future economic damages twice. Comments on itemized verdict form 1. This verdict form represents the Committee's effort to design the leanest possible model conforming to a defensible interpretation of §§ 768.77 and .78, F.S. 1987. Its publication does not imply any view of the constitutionality of § 768.77 under Art. II, Sec. 3, Fla. Const., nor any view of whether or when the parties by agreement may dispense with verdict items that the Committee interprets the statute to require. 2. The Committee acknowledges but does not adopt certain interpretations of §§ 768.77 and .78 that would require a materially different verdict form: the view that the statute requires only an undisclosed computation of present value, not the future total, as well, of future economic damages; the view that different types of...

...resent value; and the view that the number of years of future noneconomic damages must be set forth by the trier of fact. The Committee's rationale is discussed at greater length in The Florida Bar News, Vol. 15, No. 15 (August 1, 1988). 3. Although § 768.77 may well be read as requiring specification of the number of years of future noneconomic damages, the complexity added to the verdict is to no end: that information serves no purpose in § 768.78, Alternative methods of payment of [economic] damage awards. The questioned language in § 768.77 apparently is a remnant of statutes effective from 1976 to 1985 requiring itemization in medical malpractice verdicts....

...The Committee expresses no opinion of whether such future damages are "economic" within the meaning of § 768.78(2) and require itemization of years and reduction to present value. MODEL FORM OF VERDICT ITEMIZING WRONGFUL DEATH DAMAGES (TORT REFORM ACT OF 1986, § 768.77 F.S....

...FORM OF VERDICT ITEMIZING DAMAGES INTRODUCTORY COMMENT Historically, a general verdict on compensatory damages was considered appropriate, and the only form of verdict provided in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure is such a verdict. See Fla. R. Civ. P. Form 1.986(a). In 1986, the legislature adopted Florida Statute section 768.77 which required separate determinations by the trier of fact of economic damages, noneconomic damages and punitive damages, and further required designation of those damages which occurred prior to the verdict as well as those amounts intended to compensate for losses to be incurred in the future....

...makes an award to compensate for future economic damages in excess of $250,000.00. In 1989, the committee submitted Model Verdict Forms 8.1 a and 8.1 b in an "effort to design the leanest possible model conforming to a defensible interpretation of §§ 768.77 and .78, F.S.1987" and expressed no opinion as to whether said statutes were constitutional. ( See Comments *285 following Model Verdict Form 8.1 a. ) Model Verdict Form 8.1a has been modified only to recognize that consortium damages may be both economic and noneconomic. In 1999, section 768.77, Florida Statutes, was amended to require itemization of only economic losses, noneconomic losses, and punitive damages....

...oaching upon the authority of the Florida Supreme Court, the legislature requested a rule change under the provisions of article V, section 2 of the Florida Constitution consistent with the statutes. No court opinion has expressly determined whether section 768.77 or section 768.78 is constitutional under the provisions of article II, section 3 of the Florida Constitution. The committee now submits Model Verdict Forms 8.1 c and 8.1 d as forms intended to comply with the 1999 amendments to section 768.77, retaining the requirement for separately determining past and future damages....

...The committee takes no position as to whether such forms of verdict would apply to claims based on causes of action accruing before the effective date of the amendment to the statute. The committee also submits Model Verdict Forms 8.1 e and 8.1 f as forms complying with section 768.77, as amended in 1999, not requiring separate determination of past and future damages....

...Depending on the evidence presented, certain elements of damages may be considered economic, noneconomic, or a mixture of both, thus requiring appropriate modification of the verdict form. 8.1 a MODEL FORM OF VERDICT ITEMIZING PERSONAL INJURY DAMAGES (TORT REFORM ACT OF 1986, § 768.77, FLA....

...d to avoid the possibility of the jury adding future economic damages twice. Comments on itemized verdict form 1. This verdict form represents the Committee's effort to design the leanest possible model conforming to a defensible interpretation of §§ 768.77 and .78, F.S. 1987. Its publication does not imply any view of the constitutionality of § 768.77 under Art. II, Sec. 3, Fla. Const., nor any view of whether or when the parties by agreement may dispense with verdict items that the Committee interprets the statute to require. 2. The Committee acknowledges but does not adopt certain interpretations of §§ 768.77 and .78 that would require a materially different verdict form: the view that the statute requires only an undisclosed computation of present value, not the *287 future total, as well, of future economic damages; the view that different typ...

...resent value; and the view that the number of years of future noneconomic damages must be set forth by the trier of fact. The Committee's rationale is discussed at greater length in The Florida Bar News, Vol. 15, No. 15 (August 1, 1988). 3. Although § 768.77 may well be read as requiring specification of the number of years of future noneconomic damages, the complexity added to the verdict is to no end: that information serves no purpose in § 768.79, Alternative methods of payment of [economic] damage awards. The questioned language in § 768.77 apparently is a remnant of statutes effective from 1976 to 1985 requiring itemization in medical malpractice verdicts....

...The Committee expresses no opinion of whether such future damages are "economic" within the meaning of § 768.78(2) and require itemization of years and reduction to present value. 8.21b MODEL FORM OF VERDICT ITEMIZING WRONGFUL DEATH DAMAGES (TORT REFORM ACT OF 1986, § 768.77, FLA....

...in the future? $ ______ Note on Use and Comments See Note on Use and Comments supra, SJI 8.1 accompanying Model Verdict Form 8.1 a and see the Form of Verdict Itemizing Damages Introductory Comment. 8.1 c MODEL FORM OF VERDICT ITEMIZING PERSONAL INJURY DAMAGES WITH PAST AND FUTURE DAMAGES SEPARATED (TORT REFORM ACT OF 1986, § 768.77, FLA....

...[a](1)[,] [and] 4[a](2)[, 4b(1) and 4b(2)]) $______ Comment See the Form of Verdict Itemizing Damages Introductory Comment. 8.1 d MODEL FORM OF VERDICT ITEMIZING WRONGFUL DEATH DAMAGES WITH PAST AND FUTURE DAMAGES SEPARATED (TORT REFORM ACT OF 1986, § 768.77, FLA....

...Questions 3, 4, 8, 12 and/or 14 should be included as appropriate, based on the evidence presented. 3. See the Form of Verdict Itemizing Damages Introductory Comment. 8.1 e MODEL FORM OF VERDICT ITEMIZING PERSONAL INJURY DAMAGES WITHOUT PAST AND FUTURE DAMAGES SEPARATED (TORT REFORM ACT OF 1986, § 768.77, FLA....

...services $ ______] TOTAL DAMAGES OF (name spouse) [(add lines 3a and 3b)] $______ Comment *292 See the Form of Verdict Itemizing Damages Introductory Comment. 8.1 f MODEL FORM OF VERDICT ITEMIZING WRONGFUL DEATH DAMAGES WITHOUT PAST AND FUTURE DAMAGES SEPARATED (TORT REFORM ACT OF 1986, § 768.77, FLA....

...ility. As a result, the denial of appellant's peremptory strike was clearly erroneous and requires the final judgment be reversed and this cause remanded for a new trial. The remaining points on appeal regarding the former version of Florida Statute 768.77(2)(1986), and the question of remittitur are by this decision rendered moot....

...Anessa Kriston appeals an order granting a new jury trial in a personal injury action arising from an automobile accident. The trial court's ground for granting the new trial was that it erred by submitting a general verdict form to the jury rather than an itemized verdict form requested by Kriston pursuant to section 768.77, Florida Statutes (1995)....

...ave required, as requested, an itemized verdict form, and that, in his discretion, he decided that a new trial should be granted. When the legislature enacted the Tort Reform and Insurance Act of 1986, Chapter 86-160, Laws of Florida, it provided in section 768.77, Florida Statutes, that the trier of fact is to itemize the damage awards for economic and non-economic losses and to further itemize those losses into past and future categories....

...expectations test should be given. For more explanation of whether the consumer expectations test and/or the risk/benefit test applies, see the Notes on Use to Instructions 403.7 and 403.15. 2. For a model itemized verdict form, as contemplated by section 768.77, Florida Statutes, refer to Model Verdict Forms 2(a) and 2(b). - 37 - 

...The trial court declined to give the instruction after hearing *899 argument from Darragh’s counsel, who believed that the case law requiring a trial court to instruct the jury to reduce future economic damages to present value had been superced-ed by an amendment to section 768.77, Florida Statutes, in 1999. See Ch. 99-225, § 7, Laws of Fla. Contrary to Darragh’s argument, the requirement that a jury be instructed, upon request, to reduce future economic damages to their present value was a common law requirement that pre-dated the enactment of section 768.77, Florida Statutes, by many decades — as can be seen from the cases cited above dating back to 1909. Section 768.77(1) was originally enacted as part of the Tort Reform Act of 1986, see Ch....

...lix Super Market. The jury *1243 returned a verdict finding Publix 70% negligent and Mr. Young 30% negligent. The court entered a final judgment in favor of the Youngs. We reverse because the court failed to use the itemized verdict form required by section 768.77, Florida Statutes (2001)....

...The verdict form additionally requested the jury to determine Mr. Young's total amount of damages and, on a separate line, the total amount of his wife's damages. At the charge conference, Publix objected to the form because it was "not itemized like the law requires." Section 768.77 requires an itemized verdict in a negligence action....

...ollowing categories of damages: (1) Amounts intended to compensate the claimant for economic losses; (2) Amounts intended to compensate the claimant for noneconomic losses; and (3) Amounts awarded to the claimant for punitive damages, if applicable. § 768.77, Fla. Stat. (2001) (emphasis added). The original version of section 768.77 was enacted as part of the Tort Reform and Insurance Act, which became effective in 1986....

...es in a possible retrial.'" ITT Hartford Ins. Co. of the Southeast v. Owens, 816 So.2d 572, 578 (Fla.2002) (quoting David A. Lombardero, Do Special Verdicts Improve the Structure of Jury Decision Making?, 36 Jurimetrics J. 275, 278 (1996)). In 1999, section 768.77 was "amended to require itemization of only economic losses, noneconomic losses and punitive damages." Standard Jury Instructions-Civil Cases (Nos. 01-01 & 01-02), 825 So.2d 277, 285 cmt. on 6.2g & h (Fla.2002). This amendment did not change the statutory requirement for itemization; it only reduced the number of things that must be itemized. The itemized verdict required by section 768.77 "is mandatory when requested by a party." Kriston v....

...siveness or inadequacy is one which affected damages only, then there should be a new trial on damages, but not liability. Thus, in the case of a general verdict, there would be a new trial on all damages. The purpose of an itemized verdict, see id. § 768.77, is to facilitate judicial review of the jury's award by the trial judge and the appellate court....

...question? Total damages of (claimant) $ SO SAY WE ALL, this _ day of _, i9__ *381 Foreman/Forewoman NOTES ON USE 1. The court may change the order in which the questions appear on the verdict. 2. For a model itemized verdict form, as contemplated by § 768.77, Florida Statutes, refer to Model Verdict Form 8.1 or 8.2....

...control that finding, that the jury properly resorts to its own common knowledge as guided by instruction 501.7 and by argument. See Seaboard Coast Line Railroad v. Burdi, 427 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). 3. This instruction conflicts with F.S. 768.77(2)(a)2....

...l that finding, that the jury properly resorts to its own common knowledge as guided by instruction 502.7 and by argument. See Seaboard Coast Line Railroad v. Burdi, 427 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). 3. This instruction conflicts with F.S. 768.77(2)(a)2....

...consumer expectations test should be given. For more explanation of whether the consumer expectations test and/or the risk/benefit test applies, see the Notes on Use to Instructions 403.7 and 403.15. 2. For a model itemized verdict form, as contemplated by section 768.77, Florida Statutes, refer to Model Verdict Forms 2(a) and 2(b). - 28 - 

...e to control that finding, that the jury properly resorts to its own common knowledge as guided by instruction 501.7 and by argument. See Seaboard Coast Line Railroad v. Burdi, 427 So.2d 1048 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). 3. This instruction conflicts' with F.S. 768.77(2)(a)2....

...ce to control that finding, that the jury properly resorts to its own common knowledge as guided by instruction 502.7 and by argument. See Seaboard Coast Line Railroad v. Burdi, 427 So.2d 1048 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). 3. This instruction conflicts with F.S. 768.77(2)(a)2....

...control that finding, that the jury properly resorts to its own common knowledge as guided by instruction 501.7 and by argument. See Seaboard Coast Line Railroad v. Burdi, 427 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). 3. This instruction conflicts with F.S. 768.77(2)(a)2....

...l that finding, that the jury properly resorts to its own common knowledge as guided by instruction 502.7 and by argument. See Seaboard Coast Line Railroad v. Burdi, 427 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). 3. This instruction conflicts with F.S. 768.77(2)(a)2....

model itemized verdict form, as contemplated by section 768.77, Florida Statutes, refer to Model Verdict Form