Savoca v. Sherry Frontenac Hotel Operating Co., Inc.

• Decision Date: 10 May 1977
• Docket Number: No. 76-224,76-224
• Citation: 346 So.2d 1207
• Parties: Carmelo SAVOCA and Marie Savoca, Appellants, v. SHERRY FRONTENAC HOTEL OPERATING COMPANY, INC., d/b/a Sherry Frontenac Hotel, and Consolidated Mutual Insurance Company, Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 1207

346 So.2d 1207

Carmelo SAVOCA and Marie Savoca, Appellants, v. SHERRY FRONTENAC HOTEL OPERATING COMPANY, INC., d/b/a Sherry Frontenac Hotel, and Consolidated Mutual Insurance Company, Appellees.

No. 76-224.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 10, 1977.

Rehearing Denied June 17, 1977.

Dixon, Dixon, Lane & Mitchell and Edward R. Nicklaus, Miami, for appellants.

Horton, Perse & Ginsberg, P. J. Carroll & Associates, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, HAVERFIELD and HUBBART, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs, Carmelo Savoca and Marie Savoca, appeal a final judgment awarding Marie $13,000 and Carmelo zero dollars for damages for injuries sustained by Marie on the premises of the defendant when she slipped and fell injuring her hip.

Plaintiffs basically argue that the trial judge erred in giving conflicting and contradictory instructions to the jury as to whether the jurors or the judge were to reduce the total amount of compensatory damages in accordance with the jury's initial determination as to the percentage of negligence attributed to the plaintiffs and the defendant. Plaintiffs claim that the $13,000 final judgment was the result of a double reduction of the damages.

The record reflects that initially the trial judge instructed the jury on comparative negligence and that the jurors should reduce the total amount they find Marie Savoca is entitled to by the percentage of her negligence. Five minutes after the jury retired to deliberate, the trial judge called the jurors back to instruct them on the sympathy charge which he had omitted. After cautioning them not to permit bias to enter into their consideration of the verdict, the judge then explained the special interrogatory form of the verdict which the clerk gave them, and further instructed them not to be concerned about the reduction of the amount of damages. Counsel for plaintiffs and defendant made no comment or objection when asked by the trial judge if there was anything further. The jury deliberated for about an hour and then returned a verdict finding plaintiff Marie Savoca 80% negligent and defendant Sherry Frontenac Hotel 20% negligent. However, the jury had not filled in the amount of damages and the judge asked them to retire and complete the form of the verdict. At this juncture, the jurors were confused about the reduction and submitted in writing the question of who reduces the damages, the jury or the judge. Thereupon, the trial judge called the jurors into the courtroom and explained to them that they should determine the total amount of damages and the court would then reduce it. The jury retired and two minutes later returned with a verdict awarding Marie $65,000. However, the amount of damages for her husband, Carmelo, was left blank. The judge noted the blank and informed the foreman that if the jury's answer was none,...