Bucci v. Auto Builders South Florida, Inc.

• Decision Date: 09 April 1997
• Docket Number: No. 95-4002,95-4002
• Citation: 690 So.2d 1387
• Parties: 22 Fla. L. Weekly D904 Daniel M. BUCCI, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. AUTO BUILDERS SOUTH FLORIDA, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 1387

690 So.2d 1387

22 Fla. L. Weekly D904

Daniel M. BUCCI, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. AUTO BUILDERS SOUTH FLORIDA, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

No. 95-4002.

District Court of Appeal of Florida Fourth District.

April 9, 1997.

Mark S. Gold of Gold & Beller, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant/cross-appellee.

Eric G. Belsky and Ronald L. Kammer of Hinshaw & Culbertson, Miami, for appellee/cross-appellant.

POLEN, Judge.

Daniel Bucci appeals a final judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict awarding him past and future medical expenses only, in connection with an injury he sustained after falling into a ditch or hole on property being constructed by Auto Builders South Florida, Inc. (Auto Builders). Auto Builders cross-appeals the trial court's denial of its motion for directed verdict. We reverse and remand for a new trial on liability and damages.

It is uncontradicted Bucci sustained a permanent injury when he fell while walking across a partially constructed Ed Morse auto dealership in Davie, Florida, after his vehicle became disabled late one night. The construction site was not fenced or posted with warning signs, and was not lit. Bucci sustained a permanent impairment of between 5% and 12% of the body as a whole. He received medical care for several years following the accident, and submitted evidence of medical expenses totalling $19,438.15. At the close of Bucci's case, Auto Builders moved for a directed verdict on the basis that Bucci was a trespasser rather than an uninvited licensee. Its motion, and renewed motion for a directed verdict, were denied.

During deliberations the jury wrote a note to the trial judge stating it wanted to award Bucci money only for his present medical expenses to date. It asked: "How do we assign the percentages of negligence to arrive at the final medical expense amount?" The jury was instructed to follow the instructions given. It returned a verdict finding Auto Builders 20% negligent and Bucci 80% negligent for his injuries. It awarded Bucci $20,000 in past medical expenses and $80,000 in future medical expenses, denying any award of past or future lost earnings or pain and suffering. Bucci did not object to the verdict before the jury was discharged, but filed a motion for new trial, arguing the verdict was inadequate as a matter of law because the jury awarded medical expenses yet failed to award either past or future lost wages or pain and suffering. Bucci's motion was denied and final judgment was entered in the amount of $20,000.

Bucci cites to several cases where this court and others have found verdicts inadequate as a matter of law, when a jury awards medical benefits but makes no award of general damages such as pain and suffering or lost wages. Auto Builders contends the cited cases are distinguishable because Bucci made no objection before or after the jury's verdict. This court's recent opinion in Allstate Insurance Co. v. Manasse, 681 So.2d 779 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), provides guidance as to both the issue of waiver and the substantive issue presented.

In Manasse this court reversed a verdict in which the jury found the plaintiff sustained a permanent injury and awarded past noneconomic damages and future medical expenses, without awarding any future noneconomic damages. Id. at 780. We noted this court previously determined an...