Erickson v. Liestner, 74--1771

• Decision Date: 25 November 1975
• Docket Number: No. 74--1771,74--1771
• Citation: 324 So.2d 208
• Parties: Shirley ERICKSON, Appellant, v. Arthur LIESTNER et al., Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 208

324 So.2d 208

Shirley ERICKSON, Appellant, v. Arthur LIESTNER et al., Appellees.

No. 74--1771.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 25, 1975.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 20, 1976.

Wolfson, Diamond & Logan and Lawrence E. Major, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Sam Daniels, Miami, Richard Hardwick, Coral Gables, for appellees.

Before BARKDULL, C.J., HENDRY, J., and PIERCE, WILLIAM C., Associate Judge.

HENDRY, Judge.

Appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, brings this appeal from a final judgment entered in her favor by the trial court pursuant to a jury verdict in an action for damages.

On September 16, 1972, appellant was riding as a passenger in an automobile being driven by her husband. The car in which appellant was riding was struck from the rear by a vehicle owned by the appellee Martin Olsen, operated by appellee Arthur Liestner, and insured by appellee Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, all defendants in the trial court. Appellant alleged in her complaint that, as a result of this collision, she received permanent bodily injuries, aggravation of a pre-existing medical condition, and that her capacity to earn was impaired. Although appellant in the complaint did not allege an amount as damages for medical expenses, her husband, co-plaintiff in the trial court, did allege, Inter alia, such damages. ¹ After trial and pursuant to a jury verdict, final judgment was entered for appellant in the amount of $5,626.58. From this judgment, appellant brings her appeal.

Appellant's basic ground on appeal is that the trial court erred in entering said judgment based on the jury's verdict. In support of this ground, appellant contends that the jury in returning its verdict for $5,626.58, when considered in light of the evidence presented acted in an unreasonable and unjust manner, since this amount was only equal to the medical expenses allegedly incurred by her as a result of the collision.

The test to be applied in determining the adequacy of a verdict is whether a jury of reasonable persons could have returned the verdict. West v. Food Fair Stores, Fla.App.1974, 305 So.2d 280; Cobb v. City of Miami, Fla.App.1971, 254 So.2d 376. This test is simply stated but may be difficult to apply in a particular case.

In the instant appeal, the record shows that in 1964 appellant sustained injuries involving the same parts of her body as were alleged to have been injured in the 1972 accident. From 1964 to 1969 she was hospitalized eight...