Smith v. Goodpasture
| Decision Date | 28 July 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 4826,4826 |
| Citation | 179 So.2d 240 |
| Parties | Charles P. SMITH, Jr., Appellant, v. Olivia W. GOODPASTURE and Lowell E. Jarrett, Jr., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
W. C. Owen, Jr., of Miller, Cone, Owen, Wagner & Nugent, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Wallis E. Schulle, of Earnest, Pruitt & Schulle, and Robert V. Parker, of O'Connell & Cooper, West Palm Beach, for appellees.
Charles Smith, Jr., one of the defendants in this personal injury case, appeals a final judgment entered on a jury verdict exonerating his co-defendant, Lowell E. Jarrett, Jr., and awarding the plaintiff, Olivia W. Goodpasture, $78,000 in damages. A serious three-car collision gave rise to the litigation. We find no merit in any of the points raised on appeal except the one challenging the verdict as being excessive. This requires a review of the question of the damages allowed the plaintiff.
In denying a motion for a new trial the court held:
'The Court is of the opinion that the verdict was excessive but not to the extent that it would warrant a new trial or the ordering of a remittitur.'
This order comes to us properly boxed in the wide discretion of the trial court on the question of new trials, carefully wrapped in a presumption of correctness and securely tied with the strong cord of a jury verdict. None of these are lightly regarded.
We are also aware of the meaningless yet often hurled accusation that a court in setting aside a verdict as excessive usurps the prerogative of the jury. However, we have a duty to review the amount of damages awarded in this case for the simple reason that the question has been properly presented to the court by the appellant. We do not side-step this duty to review which is not in derogation of the right to trial by jury but which is rather one of the historic safeguards of that right. Bartholf v. Baker, Fla.1954, 71 So.2d 480.
The record on appeal as it relates to the issue of damages should be viewed in a light most favorable to the prevailing party. On this issue Mrs. Goodpasture offered the testimony of her several treating and examining physicians, her own testimony and that of her sister. The medical tesimony established that she suffered a severe fracture of her jaw, a fracture of the lower right femur in the area of the knee as well as various bruises, lacerations and contusions. The plainitff was hospitalized in Florida for four days before being placed in a cast and transported to a hospital in her home state of Tennessee where she was confined an additional three and one-half months. For two months of this hospital stay the plaintiff remained in traction and her situation was further complicated by a development of thrombophlebitis in her affected leg causing acute pain for nearly a week.
Three separate operations by a plastic surgeon were required to repair the fracture of the plaintiff's jaw and cheekbone and at one point her jaw had to be wired in an immobile position for a six-week period. Fat was removed from her groin to rebuild the sunken eye socket on the left side of her face. As a result of these procedures good functional results, with slight diminution in the ability to chew, were obtained and the cosmetic correction was described as 'good' though less than 'ideal'.
The plaintiff, as a result of the leg injury, has a permanent two-inch shortening of the leg with a resultant disability of not less than 50% nor more than 75%. She must now use a walker and wear a full leg brace which requires the wearing of special shoes and the manipulation of a mechanism if she wishes to bend her knee of sit down. She will have pain in this knee for the remainder of her life. Her injuries were described as initially being extremely painful with lessening discomfort after the first several weeks.
At the time of the accident the plaintiff was 68 years old, unemployed and was in good health. She did her own house and yard work, enjoyed handiwork and vacation trips with friends and was active in her church work and garden club. She testified that she cannot now get around as before and must depend on friends to take her about. She now requires domestic help and suffers from the psychological...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bravo v. U.S.
...of trial verdicts" because such reports were "not binding as precedent" and were "factually distinguishable"); Smith v. Goodpasture, 179 So.2d 240, 242 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965) (reversing an award for non-economic damages as excessive because it did not bear a "reasonable relation to ... the phil......
-
Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. McKelvey
...compensation as damages for pain and suffering has been set aside, with directions to fix a remittitur or a new trial. Smith v. Goodpasture, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 240. But, the court has approved higher multiples for past pain and suffering. Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Stewart, ......
-
Bravo v. U.S.
...We have considered the decisions in Compania Dominicana de Aviacion v. Knapp, 251 So.2d 18, 23 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971), Smith v. Goodpasture, 179 So.2d 240, 242 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965), and Gresham v. Courson, 177 So.2d 33, 39-40 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965), in light of all the other data about how the Flori......
-
Albritton v. Gandy
...although "mental pain and suffering damages must bear some reasonable relation to the facts of the case," Smith v. Goodpasture, 179 So.2d 240, 242 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965), such an award is left to the discretion of the jury unless it is clearly arbitrary or so great as to be shocking to the judi......