Burgess v. Mid-Florida Service, MID-FLORIDA
| Decision Date | 23 September 1992 |
| Docket Number | 90-2874,Nos. 90-2478,MID-FLORIDA,s. 90-2478 |
| Parties | 17 Fla. L. Week. D2211 Carolyn Cassandra BURGESS, Appellant/cross-appellee, v.SERVICE, a Florida corporation, and Dennis Lamar Devose, Appellees/cross-appellants. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James N. Nance of Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., and Philip M. Burlington of Edna L. Caruso, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant/cross-appellee.
Kenneth R. Drake of Touby Smith DeMahy & Drake, P.A., Miami, for appellees/cross-appellants.
The plaintiff appeals an order granting a new trial on a portion of the damages awarded in this personal injury action. All issues arise out of the apparent jury failure to reduce future economic losses to present money value. The jury's error on the verdict form is patent; however, the defendants raised no objection to the verdict prior to the discharge of the jury. We reverse. See, e.g., Mooreman v. Am. Safety Equip., 594 So.2d 795 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Robbins v. Graham, 404 So.2d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Sweet Paper Sales Corp. v. Feldman, 603 So.2d 109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). See also Department of Agric. & Consumer Serv. Div. of Animal Indus. v. Denmark, 366 So.2d 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Lindquist v. Covert, 279 So.2d 44 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).
The verdict provided:
2. What is the amount of any damages sustained for medical expenses and lost earnings or earning ability in the past? $30,500
3. What is the amount of any future damages for medical expenses and lost earning ability to be sustained in future years?
a. Total damages over future years? $156,000
* * * * * *
c. What is the present value of those future damages? $186,500
4. What is the amount of any damages for pain and suffering, disability, physical impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, aggravation of a disease or physical defect, or loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life.
a. in the past? $25,133
b. in the future? $120,000
(ADD LINES 2, 3c, 4a AND 4b) $362,133
The trial court recognized that the verdict reflects the jury's failure to reduce the future expenses and lost income to its present value in the space provided on the verdict form. Rather, the jury increased the future economic damage figure by adding the past expenses to the future expenses in arriving at the figure inserted, a patent mistake. Also, the total award apparently includes a double computation of the $30,500 awarded for past expenses and losses.
Nevertheless, a defense objection could and should have been raised before the discharge of the jury. The record reflects no justification for their failure to do so. Likewise, the defense presented neither evidence nor argument to the jury concerning a reduction. It is undisputed that the trial court properly charged the jury on the subject.
The record shows that the trial court reluctantly granted the new trial, concluding such an error must be considered fundamental as inconsistent with the instructions. We conclude, however, that such an error is not fundamental and is waived by the failure to timely raise it. The jury's mistaken calculation here of the one element of damages goes neither to the foundation of the case nor the merits of the cause of action. See Sanford v. Rubin, 237 So.2d 134 (Fla.1970).
Additionally, even if a fundamental error analysis were appropriate, we note that a jury's failure to arrive at a present value calculation that is smaller than the future economic damages awarded does not necessarily prove a failure to follow the court's instructions. Such a figure is consistent with an intentional determination that the present value is equal to future damages by application of a "total offset" calculation. In Delta Airlines Inc. v. Ageloff, 552 So.2d 1089 (Fla.1989), the supreme court recognized such a method of calculation by which future inflation is presumed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Delva v. Value Rent-A-Car
...Inc., 257 So.2d 36 (Fla.1971); Baker Protective Servs. Inc. v. FP, Inc., 643 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Burgess v. Mid-Florida Serv., 609 So.2d 637 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Balsera v. A.B.D.M & P. Corp., 511 So.2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), review denied, 519 So.2d 986 (Fla.1987); Phillips v. ......
-
Brough v. Imperial Sterling Ltd.
...mean that the jury failed to follow the instructions to reduce the future sum award to present value."); Burgess v. Mid-Fla. Serv., 609 So.2d 637, 638 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct.App. 1992) ("a jury's failure to arrive at a present value calculation that is smaller than the future economic damages a......
-
CG Chase Const. Co. v. Colon, 97-1353.
...by transposing the amount awarded for future medical expenses with the award for future non-economic losses); Burgess v. Mid-Florida Serv., 609 So.2d 637 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (requiring the trial court to adjust the verdict where the jury failed to reduce the future expenses and lost income ......
-
Orovitz v. Borack
...Balsera v. A.B.D.M. & P. Corp., 511 So.2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), review denied, 519 So.2d 986 (Fla.1987); Burgess v. Mid-Florida Serv., 609 So.2d 637 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Phillips v. Ostrer, 481 So.2d 1241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), review denied, 492 So.2d 1334 (Fla.1986); U.S. Home Corp. v. Sun......
-
Pop quiz: why is fundamental error like pornography?
...verdict reflecting that it did not reduce future damages to present value, the Fourth District held in Burgess v. Mid-Florida Service, 609 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), that counsel waived the issue by failing to object before the jury was discharged. (52) In reversing the order granting ......