Washwell, Inc. v. Morejon
| Decision Date | 19 March 1974 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 73--856,s. 73--856 |
| Citation | 294 So.2d 30 |
| Parties | 14 UCC Rep.Serv. 1140 WASHWELL, INC., a corporation d/b/a Washwell Laundromat, et al., Appellants, v. Victoria MOREJON, Appellee. to 73--858 and 73--876. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Podhurst, Orseck & Parks and Walter H. Beckham, Jr., Stephens, Magill, Thornton & Sevier, Miami, for appellants.
High, Stack, Davis & Lazenby and William A. Friedlander, Miami, Yelen & Yelen, Coral Gables, Knight, Peters, Hoeveler, Pickle, Niemoeller & Flynn, Jeanne Heyward, Miami, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, C.J., and CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.
Appellant, defendant in the trial court, seeks review of a final judgment pursuant to a jury verdict awarding appellee-plaintiff $385,000 in damages.
The appeal in case number 73--856 has been consolidated with appellant's other appeals arising out of a cross-claim and third party claims filed by the appellant in the trial court. In view of our determination of case No. 73--856, it is unecessary to disturb the jury's verdicts in these other cases.
The appellee in this cause, Mrs. Victoria Morejon, was at the time of the accident at appellant's laundromat, eighty-seven years old. The evidence demonstrated that Mrs. Morejon, while attempting to place a rug into a coin-operated machine on the premises, caught her left arm when the machine suddenly became activated and started to spin. As a result, her arm was severed just below the elbow. Appellee filed a complaint against appellant alleging negligent maintenance of the machine and breach of implied warranty. Appellant filed a cross-claim against Laundry Equipment Co., named as a co-defendant, on the theory that the latter sold the machine to the appellant and on occasion serviced it, and therefore was liable to appellee for damages due to breach of warranty. The appellant also filed third party claims for indemnity against the distributor and manufacturer of the washing machine. The jury returned verdicts adverse to appellant on Mrs. Morejon's complaint and on appellant's cross-claim and third party claims.
The testimony at trial revealed that a maintenance employee for appellant was aware that the machine in question was malfunctioning. Moreover, this employee had undertaken to repair the machine within thirty minutes of Mrs. Morejon's accident. The employee had started the machine as a test and left the premises in the maddle of the cycle without posting a warning that the machine was out of order. In our view, the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury verdict finding the appellant liable in this case for negligent maintenance of the washing machine.
We do not find merit to appellant's contention that the trial judge committed reversible error by submitting the issue of breach of warranty to the jury. At worst, this action was harmless error. Fla.Stat. § 59.041, F.S.A. It may be inferred from the jury's verdict against appellant and in favor of the Laundry Equipment Co. as well as the third party defendants that the jury was basing its verdict upon a finding of negligent maintenance. Appellee is entitled to all reasonable inferences from a verdict in her favor. Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Morgan, Fla.App.1968, 213 So.2d 632; Zippy Mart, Inc. v. Mercer, Fla.App.1970, 244 So.2d 522.
Assuming arguendo that the jury based its verdict upon breach of warranty theory, we do not think the verdict should be disturbed. Our Supreme Court has held that where a lessor furnishes a leased chattel, having reason to know of the particular purpose for which the chattel is required and that the lessee is relying on the skill or judgment of the lessor to provide a suitable chattel, the lessor impliedly warrants that the chattel is fit for such purpose. See W. E. Johnson Equipment Co. v. United Airlines, Inc., Fla.1970, 238 So.2d 98; Fla.Stat. § 672.315, F.S.A.
Next, we turn our attention to the more difficult question raised in this case concerning the excessiveness of the damages. at the time of trial, appellee was either eighty-eight or eighty-nine years of age. Evidence introduced at trial showed that Mrs. Morejon's life expectancy by actuarial tables at that time was either 5.36 or 5.69 years. There was also evidence that she suffered no loss of earning capacity, since she did not work, and her medical expenses due to the injury were approximately $2,000. Therefore, Mrs. Morejon's loss due to pain and suffering was determined by the jury to be in the vicinity of $383,000.
Evidence was presented that Mrs. Morejon prior to the accident was in good health and active. She lived with two of her four daughters and helped care for her thirteen-year-old grandchild who 'worshiped her.' Since the accident, Mrs. Morejon's activities have become limited and she is depressed. A doctor testified concerning the difficulty which a woman of appell...
To continue reading
Request your trial