Davis v. O'Dell, 85-1918
| Decision Date | 06 May 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-1918,85-1918 |
| Citation | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1175,506 So.2d 1107 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1175 Bill Ray DAVIS, Appellant/Cross Appellee, and Catherine Benner, Cross Appellant, v. Elmer E. O'DELL, Individually, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Daisy B. O'Dell, Deceased, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James T. Walker of Brennan, Hayskar, Jefferson & Gorman, P.A., Fort Pierce, for appellant/cross appellee.
Joan Fowler of Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder & Carson, West Palm Beach, for cross appellant.
George E. Mastics of Montgomery, Searcy & Denney, and Edna L. Caruso and
Barbara Compiani of Edna L. Caruso, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
After a jury verdict in favor of appellee, O'Dell, individually, and as Personal Representative of his wife's estate, the trial court granted O'Dell's motion for an additur or new trial on the wrongful death claim, and denied the motion as to O'Dell's individual claim. From the order granting the additur or motion for new trial Davis has perfected this appeal.
Elmer O'Dell and Daisy O'Dell, husband and wife, had a daughter, Doris Davis, who was married to appellant, Bill Ray Davis. Elmer and Daisy, both seventy-eight years of age, had been married for fifty-eight years and were very devoted to each other. Bill Ray Davis and Doris took the O'Dells on trips from time to time due to their advanced age and physical disabilities. On the day in question Bill and Doris were driving the O'Dells on a Father's Day outing to a flea market when they became involved in an automobile accident with appellant Benner, injuring Elmer and killing Daisy. In due course, Elmer sued Benner and Davis individually for his injuries and as personal representative of Daisy's estate for wrongful death. The jury returned a verdict of $25,000 for O'Dell as personal representative of the estate and $10,000 for O'Dell individually for his injuries and damages, and final judgment was entered thereon. On motion for an additur or new trial the trial court granted an additur of $75,000 or, if Davis objected thereto, a new trial. As regards O'Dell individually the court denied the motion and judgment was entered for O'Dell, individually and ultimately paid.
Davis appeals from the aforesaid order and judgment and Benner cross appeals from the order and both final judgments, presenting as the sole point on appeal the propriety of the trial court's action in setting aside the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ballard v. American Land Cruisers, Inc.
...401 So.2d 1322 (Fla.1981); Scott v. Andrews, 140 So.2d 128 (Fla.3d DCA 1962), dismissed, 146 So.2d 379 (Fla.1962); see Davis v. O'Dell, 506 So.2d 1107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Sutton v. Logan, 184 So.2d 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966); see also Johnson v. United States, 780 F.2d 902 (11th Cir.1986) (ex......
-
Frei v. Alger, 94-0263
...is required to overturn an order denying a new trial. Castlewood Int'l Corp. v. La Fleur, 322 So.2d 520 (Fla.1975); Davis v. O'Dell, 506 So.2d 1107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Niebla v. Flying Tigers Line, Inc., 533 So.2d 816 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). The supreme court has also held that when the order ......