Short v. Ehrler, 4-86-0608
| Decision Date | 05 August 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 4-86-0608,4-86-0608 |
| Citation | 510 So.2d 1110,12 Fla. L. Weekly 1881 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1881 Marianne SHORT and Donald Short, Appellants, v. Donald EHRLER and Gary Ehrler, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Philip M. Burlington of Edna L. Caruso, P.A., and Taplan & Howard, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellants.
Joan Fowler of Walton Lantaff Schroeder & Carson, West Palm Beach, for appellees.
The question presented is whether the jury erred by returning a zero verdict despite uncontroverted expert testimony that the plaintiff had, in fact, sustained some damages. The trial court denied the motion for a new trial holding "that the jury could conclude that the damages as a result of this accident were not causally related to the damages she sustained." We reverse.
In this case, the plaintiff/driver's automobile was rear-ended by another vehicle driven by one of the defendants. There is no issue as to liability for the accident, to which the defendants stipulated, and the case went to the jury solely on the issue of damages. The defense centered on a preexisting back injury resulting from an epileptic fit dating back several years before the automobile collision now at issue.
The plaintiff's two medical experts, while conceding the preexisting injury, unequivocally testified that there was an identifiable aggravation because of the car accident, resulting in at least a twelve percent permanent functional impairment. Even the Doctor named by the defense testified that some aggravation "could" have resulted from the car accident though he testified that no more than a "small degree" of the permanent impairment percentage could be related to the automobile mishap. As a consequence, there was no testimony whatever that her condition was not aggravated so that, at the very least, nominal damages should have been awarded.
Based on the closing argument, it is obvious that even the defense conceded that some aggravation occurred from the auto collision and the defense's concluding statement was as follows:
I'm not trying to say to you ladies and gentlemen that she walked away from that automobile accident without any problems. [The defense's expert medical witness] has told us that she has some aggravation of a significant pre-existing problem. That's going to be up for you to decide.
[Plaintiff's counsel] has suggested a range of $150,000 to $175,000. I don't know where that comes from. I would...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bach v. Murray, 93-2116
...(Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (citing Hartsfield v. Orlando Regional Medical Ctr., Inc., 522 So.2d 66, 68 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)); Short v. Ehrler, 510 So.2d 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Vega v. Mahfuz, 367 So.2d 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 378 So.2d 346 (Fla.1979); Worley v. Kirkland, 360 So.2d 447 (......
-
Vega v. Travelers Indem. Co.
...permanent partial disability was uncontroverted. The jury could not reasonably have returned a zero verdict. See Short v. Ehrler, 510 So.2d 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (uncontroverted expert testimony warranted award of some damages); Valdez v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 381 So.2d 743 (Fl......
-
Parker v. Hoppock
...Dania Jai Alai Palace, Inc., 560 So.2d 808, 809 (Fla. 4th), review denied, 576 So.2d 285 (Fla.1990); Pincombe; Cook. Short v. Ehrler, 510 So.2d 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Domino's, the sole defendant to receive a verdict in its favor, asserts that we should affirm its favorable liability ver......
-
Hartsfield v. Orlando Regional Medical Center, Inc.
...defendant, the jury cannot reasonably return a verdict for zero damages, and the appellant is entitled to a new trial. Short v. Ehrler, 510 So.2d 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company v. Howard, 458 So.2d 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Hannabass v. Florida Home Insuran......