Smey v. Williams, 92-1
| Decision Date | 30 October 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-1,92-1 |
| Citation | 608 So.2d 886 |
| Parties | 17 Fla. L. Week. D2477 Doris English SMEY, Appellant, v. Alfonso WILLIAMS and Eleanor Williams, his wife, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard S. Womble and Randy E. Schimmelpfennig of Rissman, Weisberg, Barrett & Hurt, P.A., Orlando, for appellant.
John N. Hamilton of Nance, Cacciatore, Sisserson & Duryea, Melbourne, for appellees.
In a personal injury action the jury was submitted a special verdict in which they specifically found that the plaintiff had not sustained a permanent injury and awarded the plaintiff $11,000 for past medical expenses and past loss of earnings, and $80,480 for damages for future medical expenses and future lost earning ability. The defendant appeals, arguing that the jury cannot award damages for future medical expenses and lost earnings without making a finding that the plaintiff had suffered a permanent injury. We do not agree and affirm.
The defendant's argument at trial seemed to be that the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law (Secs. 627.730-627.7405, Fla.Stat.) prohibits the recovery of future economic damages in the absence of an affirmative finding of a permanent injury. The Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law limits the right of a person involved in a motor vehicle accident to bring an action for damages sought for bodily injury, sickness or disease. Section 627.737(1), Florida Statutes, provides that no action may be brought to recover damages for bodily injury, sickness or disease to the extent the damages are covered by the insurance (Personal Injury Protection) required by section 627.736(1), Florida Statutes. Section 627.737(2), Florida Statutes, provides that no action may be brought to recover damages in tort for pain, suffering, mental anguish and inconvenience because of bodily injury, sickness, or disease resulting from a motor vehicle accident, unless a threshold requirement is met. This threshold requirement includes: (a) significant and permanent loss of an important bodily function, (b) permanent injury within a reasonable degree of medical probability, other than scarring or disfigurement, (c) significant and permanent scarring or disfigurement or (d) death.
The statute establishes an exemption from tort liability for a class of damages paid or payable by PIP (medical expenses, lost wages). An injured party is not precluded from bringing suit against the vehicle owner or operator for these damages in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Standard Jury Instructions Civil Cases (1.0, 6.1d, MI8), INSTRUCTIONS--CIVIL
... ... See Sec. 627.737(2), Fla.Stat. (1991); Smey v. Williams, 17 Fla.L.Weekly 2477, [608 So.2d 886] (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Cronin v. Kitler, 485 ... ...
-
Ludwig v. Ladner
...1236 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), review granted, 637 So.2d 233 (Fla.1994); Ketchen v. Dunn, 619 So.2d 1010 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Smey v. Williams, 608 So.2d 886 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Cronin v. Kitler, 485 So.2d 440 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 492 So.2d 1333 (Fla.1986); McClellan v. Industrial Fire &......
-
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Tompkins
...future economic damages without proof of a permanent injury. See Ketchen v. Dunn, 619 So.2d 1010 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Smey v. Williams, 608 So.2d 886 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Conversely, the third and fourth districts have clearly held that a claimant must prove a permanent injury as a threshold......
-
Ketchen v. Dunn
...sickness, or disease whether or not those two items of damages accrued in the past or will be suffered in the future. Smey v. Williams, 608 So.2d 886 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Since the appellant presented evidence supporting her claim for future medical expenses, the court erred in not allowing......