Laskey v. Smith, s. 38791
| Decision Date | 08 July 1970 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 38791,38791,s. 38791 |
| Citation | 239 So.2d 13 |
| Parties | Henry A. LASKEY and Carlie E. Laskey, trading and d/b/a Laskey Sales Company, and Robert Alvin Miller, Petitioners, v. Lois R. SMITH, as Administratrix of the Estate of Michelle Renee Smith, Deceased, a minor, Respondent. Henry A. LASKEY and Carlie E. Laskey, trading and d/b/a Laskey Sales Company, and Robert Alvin Miller, Petitioners, v. Lois R. SMITH, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
John R. Beranek, of Jones, Adams, Paine & Foster, W. Palm Beach, for petitioners.
Jos. D. Farish, Jr., and Eugene E. Shuey, of Farish & Farish, W. Palm Beach, for respondent.
In this case the trial judge required remittitur in the amount of $21,200, giving the plaintiff the alternative of choosing the $10,000 remaining of her $31,200 verdict or a new trial. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, one judge dissenting, 1 and this court granted certiorari on allegations of conflict with Gresham v. Courson, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 33, and Burch v. Gilbert, Fla.App.1963, 148 So.2d 289.
In Gresham v. Courson the plaintiff had agreed to remittitur of $20,000 on a $25,000 verdict based largely on the loss of the child's prospective estate. There it was the defendant who sought further reduction of the award. That decision is not in conflict.
In Burch v. Gilbert, the First District held a $20,000 verdict excessive which included minimal conscious pain and suffering and loss of prospective estate which must, to warrant a present value of $20,000, approximate $200,000 at the end of the deceased child's expected life span.
The petitioners argue that the jury's estimate of the prospective estate of the child whose administrator brought this action would exceed $300,000. This overlooks two factors, however. There is, above all, evidence that the child, who lived 12 days after the accident, suffered pain. There is also evidence that she was unconscious all the while, but the jury believed the plaintiff's testimony on this point. Secondly, there is a difficulty in determining prospective estate in any open society in which the poorest born may the richest die. The permissible range of speculation is broader than it is with life expectancy: the rich man shares the poor man's mortality.
It is true that no proof was adduced of prospective estate. It is difficult to imagine what proof might be offered by the plaintiff administrator to maximize and the defendant to minimize this element of damage which would not clutter our already crowded courts with 'experts' predicting what a three-year-old would likely leave behind if she had lived out her normal life span. Allowance of recovery for something so nebulous as an infant's prospective estate is a debatable matter of policy, but it is up to the Legislature to debate it.
A jury's determination of damage is reviewable by the trial judge on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty
...of when remittitur or, in the alternative, a new trial may be ordered by a judge (the problem presented in this case) in Laskey v. Smith, 239 So.2d 13 (1970). This Court there concluded at page "A jury's determination of damage is reviewable by the trial judge on precisely the same principl......
-
Rety v. Green
...by something outside the record." Arab Termite & Pest Control, Inc. v. Jenkins, 409 So.2d 1039, 1041, 1042 (Fla.1982); see Laskey v. Smith, 239 So.2d 13, 14 (Fla.1970). This determination necessarily requires the trial judge to "consider the credibility of the witnesses along with the weigh......
-
Marks v. Delcastillo
...testimony on the issue is required to support such an instruction or award. Threets v. Hardison, 255 So.2d 267 (Fla.1971); Laskey v. Smith, 239 So.2d 13 (Fla.1970).17 The plaintiff cites Bould v. Touchette, 349 So.2d 1181, 1186 (Fla.1977) in support of his contention that fundamental error ......
-
Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. McKelvey
...So.2d 406; Talcott v. Holl, supra. Neither an appellate court nor a trial court is to act as a seventh juror with veto power. Lasky v. Smith, Fla.1970, 239 So.2d 13; Threets v. Hardison, supra. Without an appellant showing that either a jury considered an inappropriate item of damages (Atla......