Summary
reversing trial court's refusal to remit jury's award of $150,000 for future medical expenses where evidence, at most, supported $75,000
Summary of this case from Morgan & Morgan, P.A. v. PollockOpinion
No. 4D16–4173
03-07-2018
WAL–MART STORES, INC., a Foreign Corporation, Appellant, v. Derrick THORNTON, Appellee.
Thomas A. Valdez and Karen M. Shimonsky of Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., Tampa, for appellant. Donna Greenspan Solomon of Solomon Appeals, Mediation & Arbitration, Fort Lauderdale, and Robert C. Rogers, Jr., of Lawrence J. Bohannon P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
Thomas A. Valdez and Karen M. Shimonsky of Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., Tampa, for appellant.
Donna Greenspan Solomon of Solomon Appeals, Mediation & Arbitration, Fort Lauderdale, and Robert C. Rogers, Jr., of Lawrence J. Bohannon P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
Kuntz, J.
Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. appeals the trial court’s final judgment after a jury verdict in favor of the Plaintiff for injuries sustained as a result of a slip-and-fall accident. We affirm without comment on all issues raised except Wal-Mart’s argument that the court erred in denying its motion for remittitur.
In the motion for remittitur, Wal–Mart argued the damages awarded were against the manifest weight of the evidence. After a careful review of the testimony and evidence, we conclude that, while there was some evidence to support most portions of the award, the trial court should have granted remittitur as to the $150,000 for future medical expenses. The jury awarded the Plaintiff $150,000 even though the Plaintiff’s doctor testified that future medical costs for "a potential future knee replacement 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. The reconsideration must be limited to the portion of the judgment relating only to future medical expenses. The judgment is otherwise affirmed.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
Gross and Forst, JJ., concur.