Valinzo v. Cem-Kam, Inc., CEM-KA

• Decision Date: 20 August 1997
• Docket Number: No. 96-0393,INC,CEM-KA,96-0393
• Citation: 698 So.2d 359
• Parties: 22 Fla. L. Weekly D1989 Princess VALINZO and James Valinzo, her husband, Appellants, v., Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 359

698 So.2d 359

22 Fla. L. Weekly D1989

Princess VALINZO and James Valinzo, her husband, Appellants, v. CEM-KAM, INC., Appellee.

No. 96-0393.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,

Fourth District.

Aug. 20, 1997.

Walter G. Campbell, Jr. of Krupnick, Campbell, Malone, Roselli, Buser, Slama & Hancock, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.

Angela C. Flowers of Kubicki Draper, Miami, for appellee.

WARNER, Judge.

We affirm the final judgment entered upon a jury verdict awarding appellant-Princess Valinzo $2,500. Although she claims that the verdict was grossly inadequate, we conclude under the facts of this case that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying her alternative motions for new trial or additur.

This case arose from an incident at a McDonald's restaurant. Mrs. Valinzo ordered a drink which contained at least some, if not all, sanitizer solution. A McDonald's employee had been cleaning out one of the iced tea dispensers, and another employee used that dispenser to fill Mrs. Valinzo's drink.

There is a dispute as to what happened next. According to Mrs. Valinzo, upon taking a drink, she immediately felt a burning sensation in her throat and then ran to the bathroom where she vomited blood. The McDonald's representative, on the other hand, testified that Mrs. Valinzo took a sip of the drink and said it tasted funny, at which point the drink was replaced. The McDonald's representative also testified that Mrs. Valinzo overheard the employees' conversation about the error in giving her the sanitizer and that only after she heard this conversation did she begin to act like something was wrong with her. She was then taken to the hospital in an ambulance, and, after poison control was called, she was given a nasogastric lavage. This procedure involved sticking a tube through her nostrils to pump liquid into her stomach to dilute the sanitizer.

Subsequent to her emergency room trip, appellant saw a variety of ear/nose/throat specialists, gastroenterologists, psychologists, and psychiatrists. She claimed to have numerous problems as a result of this incident and incurred $23,000 in past medical expenses.

The appellee admitted negligence but contested causation, presenting doctors who testified that Mrs. Valinzo had no physical or psychiatric problems. Appellee also presented a toxicologist who testified that the sanitizer was non-toxic. The toxicologist conducted his own personal test by ingesting a mixture of iced tea and sanitizer, which resulted in none of the symptoms Mrs. Valinzo claimed to have experienced.

The jury awarded Mrs. Valinzo $2,500 for past medical expenses and nothing for past pain and suffering, or any future damages; the jury awarded nothing to Mr. Valinzo for his loss of consortium claim. Appellants contend that the jury's award of a portion of Mrs. Valinzo's medical expenses, greater than the amount equal to her emergency room/ambulance expenses on the day of the incident, is inconsistent with a zero award for pain and suffering. She claims that, at the very least, the nasogastric lavage procedure was painful and required...