Wisekal v. Lab. Corp., CASE NO. 12-80806-CIV-HURLEY

• Decision Date: 28 July 2014
• Docket Number: CASE NO. 12-80806-CIV-HURLEY
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
• Parties: JOHN WISEKAL, as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF DARIAN WISEKAL, plaintiff, v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS and GLENDA C. MIXON, defendants.

JOHN WISEKAL, as Personal Representative
of the ESTATE OF DARIAN WISEKAL, plaintiff,
v.
LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS
and GLENDA C. MIXON, defendants.

CASE NO. 12-80806-CIV-HURLEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

July 28, 2014

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR REMITTITUR OR ALTERNATIVELY FOR NEW TRIAL

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the defendants' motion for remittitur, or in the alternative, for new trial, pursuant to § 768.74, Fla. Stat. and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 [ECF 301], the plaintiff's response in opposition [ECF 315] and the defendant's reply [ECF 321].

I. Background

On April16, 2014, the jury returned its verdict in the above-captioned wrongful death action, awarding the following categories of economic and non-economic damages:

Lost net accumulations to the Estate:	$ 87,200.00
Lost Past and Future Support and Services:	$ 261,000.00 per claimant
Non-economic damages to John Wisekal: (surviving spouse of fourteen year marriage)	$ 5,000,000.00
Non-economic damages to Baylor Wisekal: (Surviving child age 13)	$ 7,500,000.00
Non-economic damages to Bianca Wisekal: (surviving child age 10)	$ 7,500,000.00

Page 2

The jury further determined that the plaintiff's decedent, Darian Wisekal, was also negligent, and apportioned 25% of the contributing fault for the loss to the plaintiff. After applying the comparative negligence factor, on April 21, 2014, the court entered final judgment in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $15,816.699.11, jointly and severally, against the defendants.

On July 28, 2014, the court denied defendants' post-trial motion for new trial and renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. The court now turns its inquiry to the defendants' current motion for remittitur of both the economic and non-economic damage awards, or alternatively, for a new trial on damages.

Turning, first, to the defendant's challenge to the economic damages awards, the court concludes that the evidence adduced at trial reasonably supports the jury's verdict on these components of loss, and summarily denies the defendants' challenge to this aspect of the verdict.¹

The court's analysis turns, next, to the jury's non-economic damage award. Here, the defendants argue that the jury's total award of $20,000.000.00 for intangible damages is so excessive that it could only have been the result of passion or prejudice, or consideration of improper elements of damage, and further that the amount awarded bears no reasonable relationship to the amount of damages proved, requiring the court to substantially reduce the award, or alternatively, vacate the judgment and order a new trial.

The court does not agree that the verdict was the result of passion or prejudice. To the contrary, the court was impressed by and acknowledges the extraordinary effort that was expended

Page 3

by the jurors in attendance in this case, as reflected in their obvious attentiveness throughout the entirety of the trial proceedings and their diligence in the deliberative process. However, the court does conclude that the amount of non-economic damages awarded by the jury was excessive and unreasonable in relationship to the amount of damages proved and was not logically supported by the evidence presented, and for these reasons, as more particularly detailed below, the court has determined to order a remittitur of the non-economic awards, failing acceptance of which the case shall be resubmitted to trial by jury on the issues of damages only.

II. Discussion

Under Florida law, an award of non-economic damages must bear some reasonable relation to the facts, the status of the parties, and the philosophy and general trend of prior decisions in similar cases. Bravo v. United States, 532 F.3d 1154, 1162 (11^th Cir. 2008), citing Johnson v. United States, 780 F.2d 902 (11^th Cir. 1986) (quoting Fla. Dairies Co. v. Rogers, 119 Fla. 451, 161 So.85, 88 (Fla. 1935)). In reviewing the general trend of decisions in similar cases, the court should generally limit its inquiry to cases where pain and suffering awards were upheld against excessiveness challenges in similar scenarios, with a particular focus on cases drawn from the state appellate court having jurisdiction over the location where the tort in question occurred. Id.

Under Florida statutes, the court is further obligated to consider the following criteria in determining whether an award is excessive or inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances presented to the trier of fact: (1) whether the amount awarded is indicative of prejudice, passion, or corruption on the part of the trier of fact; (2) whether it appears that the trier of fact ignored the evidence in reaching a verdict or misconceived the merits of the case relating to the amounts of damages recoverable; (3) whether the trier of fact took improper elements of damages into account or arrived at the amount of damages by speculation and conjecture; (4) whether the amount bears a

Page 4

reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered, and (5) whether the amount awarded is supported by evidence and is such that it could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons. § 768.74 (5), Fla. Stat. (2013).

In determining the reasonableness of a verdict, the court applies an objective standard. If the jury's award is so extravagant as to shock the judicial conscience, or it is manifestly unsupported by the evidence or indicates that the jury was influenced by passion, prejudice or other matters outside the record, the court in its discretion may set aside the verdict. Citrus County v. McQuillin, 840 So.2d 343, 347 (Fla. 5^th DCA 2003).

In this case, the defendants argue the jury's non-economic damage awards were excessive compared to awards sanctioned by Florida...