Thieneman v. Cameron
| Decision Date | 26 January 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 59-564,59-564 |
| Citation | 126 So.2d 170 |
| Parties | Ione G. THIENEMAN and F. Ruley Thieneman, Appellants, v. Iverson CAMERON, Jr., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Edward L. Walton, Miami, for appellants.
Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder, Atkins, Carson & Wahl, Miami, for appellee.
This is an action ex delicto arising out of a traffic accident. The plaintiff-wife sued for personal injuries primarily involving her neck and back. Her husband joined in the action by making a claim for loss of consortium and out-of-pocket expense. The jury awarded $400 to the wife but did not award anything to the husband. The plaintiffs have appealed and have assigned as error: 1) the trial judge's refusal to give a charge to the jury upon prospective damages; 2) the trial judge's refusal to grant a new trial for alleged inadequacy of the verdict; 3) the trial judge's refusal to grant a new trial on the ground that the jury having found liability by an award of damages to the plaintiff-wife must award damages indisputably proved by the plaintiff-husband.
An examination of the record in the light of appellants' brief demonstrates that there was no evidence of permanent injury to the plaintiff-wife. Therefore the court properly refused to instruct upon the issue of future damages. See Collins v. Godwin, 65 Fla. 283, 61 So. 632.
By appellants' second point they urge that the verdict is so grossly insufficient that the trial court was required to grant a new trial upon their motion. The amount of the verdict for the wife is decidedly less than the wife's estimate of her damages, but upon a review of all of the evidence presented, it appears that the jury's award to the wife is within the limits of the evidence. Cf. Higbee v. Dorigo, Fla.1953, 66 So.2d 684.
The appellants' third point is directed to the refusal to grant a new trial to the plaintiff-husband because of the failure of the jury to award any damages upon the husband's claim. We hold that the trial judge was in error. The record here supports the fact that the husband has suffered some damages, even if only the medical bills are considered. There is also substantial, uncontradicted evidence of loss of services. In Loftin v. Anderson, Fla.1953, 66 So.2d 470, where a wife brought an action to recover for personal injuries sustained, and her husband joined in the action, claiming damages for hospital, medical and doctor's bills, loss of services, consortium and future medical care, the trial court entered a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Guinn v. Millard Truck Lines, Inc.
...the expense and burden of a retrial of issues once properly settled.' Also see Loftin v. Anderson (Fla.), 66 So.2d 470; Thieneman v. Cameron (Fla.App.), 126 So.2d 170; and Chance v. Lawry's, Inc., supra, 374 P.2d 185, 193, 194. Although we are not faced with such a partial retrial problem h......
-
Chance v. Lawry's, Inc.
...circumstances would award the husband a new trial on the issue of damages only (Loftin v. Anderson (Fla.) 66 So.2d 470; Thieneman v. Cameron (Fla.App.) 126 So.2d 170; and see McNett v. Volfi, 205 Cal. 89, 93, 269 P. 932, 933). But while Mr. Chance, who has not appealed, may have 'grounds fo......
-
Cowart v. Kendall United Methodist Church
...v. Burgin, 311 So.2d 695 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Fejer v. Whitehall Laboratories, Inc., 182 So.2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Thieneman v. Cameron, 126 So.2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961); Stroud v. Govreau, 495 S.W.2d 682 (Mo.1973); Lewis v. Moss, 347 So.2d 91 (Ala.1977); Morris v. McCauley's Quality Tra......
-
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Tompkins
...clearly held that a claimant must prove a permanent injury as a threshold to obtaining future economic damages. Thieneman v. Cameron, 126 So.2d 170, 171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961); Fazzolari v. City of West Palm Beach, 608 So.2d 927 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), review denied, 620 So.2d 760 (Fla.1993); Our ......