Florida Statute 768.74 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title XLV
TORTS

Chapter 768
NEGLIGENCE

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 768.74

768.74 Remittitur and additur.—

(1) In any action to which this part applies wherein the trier of fact determines that liability exists on the part of the defendant and a verdict is rendered which awards money damages to the plaintiff, it shall be the responsibility of the court, upon proper motion, to review the amount of such award to determine if such amount is excessive or inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact.

(2) If the court finds that the amount awarded is excessive or inadequate, it shall order a remittitur or additur, as the case may be.

(3) It is the intention of the Legislature that awards of damages be subject to close scrutiny by the courts and that all such awards be adequate and not excessive.

(4) If the party adversely affected by such remittitur or additur does not agree, the court shall order a new trial in the cause on the issue of damages only.

(5) In determining whether an award is excessive or inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances presented to the trier of fact and in determining the amount, if any, that such award exceeds a reasonable range of damages or is inadequate, the court shall consider the following criteria:

(a) Whether the amount awarded is indicative of prejudice, passion, or corruption on the part of the trier of fact;

(b) 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;

(c) Whether the trier of fact took improper elements of damages into account or arrived at the amount of damages by speculation and conjecture;

(d) Whether the amount awarded bears a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered; and

(e) Whether the amount awarded is supported by the evidence and is such that it could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons.

(6) It is the intent of the Legislature to vest the trial courts of this state with the discretionary authority to review the amounts of damages awarded by a trier of fact in light of a standard of excessiveness or inadequacy. The Legislature recognizes that the reasonable actions of a jury are a fundamental precept of American jurisprudence and that such actions should be disturbed or modified with caution and discretion. However, it is further recognized that a review by the courts in accordance with the standards set forth in this section provides an additional element of soundness and logic to our judicial system and is in the best interests of the citizens of this state.

History.—s. 53, ch. 86-160.

F.S. 768.74 on Google Scholar

F.S. 768.74 on CourtListener

Amendments to 768.74

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 768.74

Total Results: 133

Brown v. Estate of Stuckey

749 So. 2d 490, 1999 WL 669205

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Aug 26, 1999 | Docket: 1690299

Cited 174 times | Published

by passion or prejudice. The procedure under section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1997), for remittitur and

Liggett Group, Inc. v. Engle

853 So. 2d 434, 2003 WL 21180319

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 21, 2003 | Docket: 2527636

Cited 55 times | Published

plaintiff, as required by Florida and federal law. See § 768.74(5)(d), Fla. Stat. (1997); Bankers Multiple Line

Myers v. CENTRAL FLORIDA INVESTMENTS, INC.

592 F.3d 1201, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 232, 108 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 111, 2010 WL 20987

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Jan 6, 2010 | Docket: 1152239

Cited 51 times | Published

logical manner by reasonable persons. Fla. Stat. § 768.74(5). Taking each factor in turn, we hold that the

Piamba Cortes Ex Rel. Piamba Cortes v. American Airlines, Inc.

177 F.3d 1272, 1999 A.M.C. 2286, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 13191

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Jun 15, 1999 | Docket: 395372

Cited 51 times | Published

domiciliary defendants. Cf. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 768.74(1) (conferring discretion to courts to review

Hattaway v. McMillian

903 F.2d 1440, 1990 WL 75061

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Jun 25, 1990 | Docket: 66254785

Cited 47 times | Published

additur was ordered pursuant to Florida Statutes § 768.74.13 The district court found that the $2,000,000

Cortes v. American Airlines, Inc.

177 F.3d 1272

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Jun 15, 1999 | Docket: 395371

Cited 33 times | Published

61 Ann. § 768.74(1) (conferring discretion to courts to review

REGENCY LAKE APTS. ASSOCIATES, LTD. v. French

590 So. 2d 970, 1991 WL 253375

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 26, 1991 | Docket: 408027

Cited 29 times | Published

1986), rev. denied, 494 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 1986). Section 768.74(4), Fla. Stat., provides, however, "If the

Basel v. McFarland & Sons, Inc.

815 So. 2d 687, 2002 WL 506947

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 5, 2002 | Docket: 1277892

Cited 23 times | Published

Estate of Stuckey, 749 So.2d 490 (Fla.1999). Section 768.74, Florida Statutes governs additur and authorizes

Rowlands v. Signal Const. Co.

549 So. 2d 1380, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 520, 1989 Fla. LEXIS 1005, 1989 WL 120849

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 12, 1989 | Docket: 1373556

Cited 21 times | Published

basis. Ch. 86-160, § 53, Laws of Fla. (codified at § 768.74, Fla. Stat. (1987)).

Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Alexander

123 So. 3d 67, 2013 WL 4734565, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 14155

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 4, 2013 | Docket: 60235156

Cited 18 times | Published

Florida’s remittitur and ad-ditur statute, section 768.74 of the Florida Statutes, (2012), the trial

Aurbach v. Gallina

721 So. 2d 756, 1998 WL 821756

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 12, 1998 | Docket: 1322821

Cited 18 times | Published

tantamount to a denial of the motion for additur. Section 768.74(1), Florida Statutes (1997), authorizes additur

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Manasse

681 So. 2d 779, 1996 WL 539838

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 25, 1996 | Docket: 1722240

Cited 18 times | Published

damages be subject to close scrutiny by the courts." § 768.74(3). From a review of the appellate cases decided

City of Hollywood v. Hogan

986 So. 2d 634, 2008 WL 2261504

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 4, 2008 | Docket: 1728096

Cited 17 times | Published

light of the evidence presented at trial. In section 768.74, Florida Statutes, the legislature made its

Hawk v. Seaboard System RR, Inc.

547 So. 2d 669, 1989 WL 73758

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 5, 1989 | Docket: 1738848

Cited 17 times | Published

reviewed the criteria for remittitur contained in section 768.74(5), Florida Statutes (1985), and find that

Beauvais v. Edell

760 So. 2d 262, 2000 WL 726363

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 7, 2000 | Docket: 1695284

Cited 16 times | Published

motion for an additur was made pursuant to section 768.74 and its counterpart, section 786.043. This

Winston Johnson v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers

437 F.3d 1112, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 2016, 2006 WL 197182

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Jan 27, 2006 | Docket: 398502

Cited 15 times | Published

reputation.” Id.; see also Fla. Stat. § 768.74(5). Barnes & Noble argues that

REPUBLIC SERVICES OF FLORIDA v. Poucher

851 So. 2d 866, 2003 WL 21910630

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 12, 2003 | Docket: 1313212

Cited 15 times | Published

Gallina, 721 So.2d 756 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Section 768.74(1), Florida Statutes (1999), states: (1) In

Poole v. VETERANS AUTO SALES & LEASING

668 So. 2d 189, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 69, 1996 Fla. LEXIS 101, 1996 WL 63079

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Feb 15, 1996 | Docket: 1290523

Cited 15 times | Published

question to be of great public importance: If section 768.74 permits a trial judge to order a new trial

ITT Hartford Ins. Co. of the SE v. Owens

816 So. 2d 572, 2002 WL 716263

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 25, 2002 | Docket: 1565687

Cited 12 times | Published

dismiss the concerns which prompted the question. Section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1993), provides that the

Deklyen v. Truckers World, Inc.

867 So. 2d 1264, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 3510, 2004 WL 534047

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 19, 2004 | Docket: 1722602

Cited 11 times | Published

Dekylen's comparative negligence. [2] By enacting section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1986), the Legislature shed

Dyes v. Spick

606 So. 2d 700, 1992 WL 277248

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 12, 1992 | Docket: 93138

Cited 11 times | Published

(1989), and the remittitur and additur statute, section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1989). This court has previously

Griefer v. DiPietro

625 So. 2d 1226, 1993 WL 182478

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 8, 1993 | Docket: 474096

Cited 10 times | Published

statute substantially identical in text to section 768.74, Florida Statutes, the supreme court reiterated

Glabman v. De La Cruz

954 So. 2d 60, 2007 WL 910742

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 28, 2007 | Docket: 2452115

Cited 9 times | Published

set forth in section 768.74, Florida Statutes (2006), when ordering remittitur. See § 768.74, Fla. Stat

Broward County School Bd. v. Dombrosky

579 So. 2d 748, 1991 WL 50134

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 10, 1991 | Docket: 1432459

Cited 9 times | Published

dispositive. Dombrosky argues that pursuant to section 768.74, Fla. Stat. (1987)[1] the trial court was required

GLORIA PATRICIA SANCHEZ and BODY & SOUL RETREAT, LLC. v. JOHANA CINQUE and VONCENT CINQUE

238 So. 3d 817

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 14, 2018 | Docket: 6304714

Cited 8 times | Published

a logical manner by reasonable persons. § 768.74(5), Fla. Stat. The record in this case does

School Board of Broward County v. Pierce Goodwin Alexander & Linville

137 So. 3d 1059, 2014 WL 1031461, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3916

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 19, 2014 | Docket: 60240150

Cited 8 times | Published

amount awarded is [not] supported by the evidence.” § 768.74(5), Fla. Stat. (2013).10 The school board argues

Hendry v. Zelaya

841 So. 2d 572, 2003 WL 1239998

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 19, 2003 | Docket: 2534316

Cited 8 times | Published

contrary to the evidence. Fla. Stat. § 768.74(1)(2002). Section 768.74(4) provides that, "[i]f the party

Stanberry v. Escambia County

813 So. 2d 278, 2002 WL 553391

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 16, 2002 | Docket: 1403430

Cited 8 times | Published

opportunity for a new trial, in violation of section 768.74(4), Florida Statutes (2001), does not make

St. John v. Coisman

799 So. 2d 1110, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 16277, 2001 WL 1434195

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 16, 2001 | Docket: 1681643

Cited 8 times | Published

Thus it clearly does not apply to this case. Section 768.74 is another potentially applicable statute.

State v. Smyly

646 So. 2d 238, 1994 WL 637502

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 16, 1994 | Docket: 1713384

Cited 8 times | Published

raises a judicial eyebrow at its verdict); but see § 768.74, Fla. Stat. (1993) (trial court has responsibility

Seminole Gulf Ry. v. Fassnacht

635 So. 2d 142, 1994 WL 128019

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 15, 1994 | Docket: 1352981

Cited 8 times | Published

of life[.]" [2] § 768.043, Fla. Stat. (1989); § 768.74, Fla. Stat. (1989). [3] Comparative fault.

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Grossman

211 So. 3d 221, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 50

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 4, 2017 | Docket: 60262560

Cited 7 times | Published

Florida’s remittitur and ad-ditur statute, section 768.74 of the Florida Statutes, the trial court has

Normius v. Eckerd Corp.

813 So. 2d 985, 2002 WL 397469

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 15, 2002 | Docket: 1403395

Cited 7 times | Published

the award of damages to one hundred dollars. Section 768.74(1), Florida Statutes (1993), states that upon

Arena Parking, Inc. v. Lon Worth Crow Ins. Agency

768 So. 2d 1107, 2000 WL 826864

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 28, 2000 | Docket: 526758

Cited 7 times | Published

believe this was a clear abuse of discretion. In section 768.74(1), Florida Statutes (1997), the legislature

Fravel v. Haughey

727 So. 2d 1033, 1999 WL 76059

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 18, 1999 | Docket: 1438280

Cited 7 times | Published

medical expenses is not supported by the record. Section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1995), provides, in relevant

Food Lion v. Jackson

712 So. 2d 800, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 7584, 1998 WL 335788

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 26, 1998 | Docket: 1471343

Cited 7 times | Published

liability while recognizing the provisions of section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1987), require that the

Mason v. DIST. BD. OF BROWARD COLLEGE

644 So. 2d 160, 1994 WL 583692

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 26, 1994 | Docket: 1248437

Cited 7 times | Published

Appellant filed a motion for additur pursuant to section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1991), or a new trial, which

Young v. Becker & Poliakoff, P.A.

88 So. 3d 1002, 2012 WL 1859108, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8252

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 23, 2012 | Docket: 60308104

Cited 6 times | Published

presented at trial. Hogan, 986 So.2d at 648. Section 768.74, Florida Statutes, provides criteria for evaluating

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Townsend

90 So. 3d 307

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 14, 2012 | Docket: 60309350

Cited 6 times | Published

consistent with the legislative policy expressed in section 768.74, Florida Statutes (2009). This statute recognizes

Moore v. Perry

944 So. 2d 1115, 2006 WL 3452387

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 1, 2006 | Docket: 1157634

Cited 6 times | Published

of motor vehicles. The more recent statute, section 768.74, Florida Statutes (2005), was adopted in 1986

McCarthy Bros. Co. v. Tilbury Const., Inc.

849 So. 2d 7, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 3062, 2003 WL 882356

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 10, 2003 | Docket: 447546

Cited 6 times | Published

argument, and for purposes of this opinion. [2] See § 768.74(6), Fla. Stat. (2001); see also Winn-Dixie Stores

Davis v. Caterpillar, Inc.

787 So. 2d 894, 2001 WL 454675

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 2, 2001 | Docket: 1496067

Cited 6 times | Published

ordered were woefully insufficient. We agree. Section 768.74(1), Florida Statutes (1997), authorizes additurs

Ramey v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, Inc.

710 So. 2d 191, 1998 WL 204900

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 29, 1998 | Docket: 1731602

Cited 6 times | Published

remand the cause for a new trial on all issues. Section 768.74, Florida Statutes, requires the trial court

Gwendolyn E. Odom, etc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company

254 So. 3d 268

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 20, 2018 | Docket: 7943260

Cited 5 times | Published

presented to the trier of fact." Id. § 768.74(1). The remittitur statute explains that although

Franklin Life Ins. Co. v. Davy

753 So. 2d 581, 1999 WL 1244440

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 22, 1999 | Docket: 1433213

Cited 5 times | Published

or a new trial on damages only pursuant to section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1995). In the order, the

Hertz Corp. v. David Klein Mfg., Inc.

636 So. 2d 189, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 4113, 1994 WL 162762

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 3, 1994 | Docket: 1361887

Cited 5 times | Published

amount awarded is unsupported by the evidence. Section 768.74(5)(b), (d), (e), Fla. Stat. (1993); see also

Lindenfield v. Dorazio by Dorazio

606 So. 2d 1255, 1992 WL 308876

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 28, 1992 | Docket: 134948

Cited 5 times | Published

inadequate based upon the criteria set forth in F.S. 768.74(5). ... . (4) The Plaintiff's Motion for A New

G4s Secure Solutions USA, Inc., Etc. v. Golzar

208 So. 3d 204, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 16663

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 9, 2016 | Docket: 4486860

Cited 4 times | Published

ordering a remittitur or a new trial under section 768.74 of the Florida Statutes (2014), on the ground

Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Naugle

103 So. 3d 944, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 21391, 2012 WL 6171608

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 12, 2012 | Docket: 60227266

Cited 4 times | Published

punitive damages were excessive pursuant to section 768.74(5), Florida Statutes (2007): I am [] convinced

Adams v. Saavedra

65 So. 3d 1185, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 11758, 2011 WL 3108076

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 27, 2011 | Docket: 92854

Cited 4 times | Published

fails to justify, a remittitur in this case. Section 768.74, Florida Statutes (2010), governs remittiturs

Aills v. Boemi

41 So. 3d 1022, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 11459, 2010 WL 3059445

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 6, 2010 | Docket: 1668017

Cited 4 times | Published

damage award for future medical expenses. See § 768.74(4), Fla. Stat. (2006) ("If the party adversely

Westminster Community Care Services, Inc. v. Mikesell

12 So. 3d 838, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 6615, 2009 WL 1490826

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 29, 2009 | Docket: 1647074

Cited 4 times | Published

We are here concerned with the provision of section 768.74(4), Florida Statutes (2005), which provides

Johnson v. Clark

484 F. Supp. 2d 1242, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28664, 2007 WL 1174111

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Apr 18, 2007 | Docket: 2317366

Cited 4 times | Published

logical manner by reasonable persons. Fla. Stat. § 768.74(5) (2006); see also Spencer v. BR Contracting

Popular Bank v. Rc Asesores Financieros

797 So. 2d 614, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 14208, 2001 WL 1189523

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 10, 2001 | Docket: 1359366

Cited 4 times | Published

award of special transaction fees pursuant to section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1999)[3], where RCAF's expert

National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Blackmon

754 So. 2d 840, 2000 WL 354199

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 7, 2000 | Docket: 1523478

Cited 4 times | Published

the award inadequate, it shall order an additur. § 768.74(1) Fla. Stat. (1995). Blackmon made a proper motion

STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. v. Rejrat

540 So. 2d 911, 1989 WL 29043

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 29, 1989 | Docket: 1688874

Cited 4 times | Published

possibility of an addittur also exists in this case. § 768.74, Fla. Stat. (1987). In ruling upon any such post-trial

Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Ledoux

230 So. 3d 530

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 18, 2017 | Docket: 6171786

Cited 3 times | Published

of a jury’s damages award is reinforced by section 768.74, Florida Statutes (2016) entitled “Remittitur

Bluth v. Blake

128 So. 3d 242, 2013 WL 6479252, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 19645

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 11, 2013 | Docket: 60237039

Cited 3 times | Published

attorney pursuant to section 768.74(4), Florida Statutes (2011). Section 768.74(4) states: If the party

Chaskes v. Gutierrez

116 So. 3d 479, 2013 WL 1980214, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 7822

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 15, 2013 | Docket: 60232361

Cited 3 times | Published

matters beyond the bounds of the record.”); see also § 768.74, Fla. Stat. (2012).

Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Cohen

102 So. 3d 11, 2012 WL 3964705, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 15313

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 12, 2012 | Docket: 60226524

Cited 3 times | Published

all such awards be adequate and not excessive.” § 768.74(3), Fla. Stat. (2010). “Under Florida law an award

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Webb

93 So. 3d 331, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5324, 2012 WL 1150210

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 9, 2012 | Docket: 60310546

Cited 3 times | Published

circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact.” § 768.74(1), Fla. Stat. (2010). In determining whether

Garrett v. Miami Transfer Co., Inc.

964 So. 2d 286, 2007 WL 2780988

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 26, 2007 | Docket: 1240529

Cited 3 times | Published

presented to the trier of fact." § 768.74(1), Fla. Stat. (2006). Section 768.74(5) sets forth the criteria

Street v. HR MORTG. & REALTY CO.

949 So. 2d 1158, 2007 WL 601549

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 28, 2007 | Docket: 1375152

Cited 3 times | Published

from $375,000 to $550,000. Florida Statutes section 768.74(1) authorizes trial courts to review the amount

Morton Roofing, Inc. v. Prather

864 So. 2d 64, 2003 WL 22970864

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 19, 2003 | Docket: 1426306

Cited 3 times | Published

presented. She further points out that under section 768.74(6), Florida Statutes, the legislature has vested

CSX Transp., Inc. v. Palank

743 So. 2d 556, 1999 WL 641885

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 25, 1999 | Docket: 529732

Cited 3 times | Published

excessiveness of the punitive damage award. See § 768.74(5)(a)-(e), Fla. Stat. Further, we reject CSX's

Kaine v. Government Employees Ins. Co.

735 So. 2d 599, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 9065, 1999 WL 454399

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 7, 1999 | Docket: 2534084

Cited 3 times | Published

discretion by not following the criteria set out in section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1997), and by not following

Doughty v. Insurance Co. of North America

701 So. 2d 1225, 1997 WL 740658

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 3, 1997 | Docket: 1447215

Cited 3 times | Published

-0- future lost earning ability. Although section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1995), appears to require

Southland Corp. v. Crane

699 So. 2d 332, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 10842, 1997 WL 593906

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 26, 1997 | Docket: 1321170

Cited 3 times | Published

resulting in a new trial on damages pursuant to section 768.74, Florida Statutes. The defendant rejected the

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Diane Schleider, Etc.

273 So. 3d 63

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 26, 2018 | Docket: 8454709

Cited 2 times | Published

best interests of the citizens of this state. § 768.74, Fla. Stat. (2014) (emphasis added). None

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Odom

210 So. 3d 696, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 17713

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 30, 2016 | Docket: 60261830

Cited 2 times | Published

Florida’s remittitur and ad-ditur statute, section 768.74 of the Florida Statutes, the trial court has

Moreno v. Diaz

943 So. 2d 1011, 2006 WL 3615113

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 13, 2006 | Docket: 1527390

Cited 2 times | Published

well-established Florida law on remittitur, section 768.74, Florida Statutes (2001),[4] delineates certain

TERRY PLUMBING & HOME SERVICES v. Berry

900 So. 2d 581, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 14986, 2004 WL 2290630

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 13, 2004 | Docket: 463110

Cited 2 times | Published

discretion in ruling on a Motion for Additur. § 768.74(6), Fla. Stat. (2003). To this end, a trial court's

Jarvis v. Tenet Health Systems Hosp., Inc.

743 So. 2d 1218, 1999 WL 1037925

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 17, 1999 | Docket: 1670133

Cited 2 times | Published

and remand for a new trial on damages only. Section 768.74(4), Florida Statutes addresses the procedure

VETERANS AUTO SALES & LEAS. v. Poole

649 So. 2d 264, 1994 WL 718747

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 30, 1994 | Docket: 1693895

Cited 2 times | Published

arising out of the operation of motor vehicles. Section 768.74, part of the Tort Reform Act of 1986, provides

Faith Freight Forwarding Corp. v. Anias

206 So. 3d 753, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 14527

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 28, 2016 | Docket: 4426700

Cited 1 times | Published

not agree to the remitted amount. See § 768.74(4), Fla. Stat. (2014). We also note that the final

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Townsend

118 So. 3d 844, 2013 WL 2631879, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 9372

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 13, 2013 | Docket: 60233444

Cited 1 times | Published

proposed remitted judgment, as provided by section 768.74(4), Florida Statutes, as interpreted by our

Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Naugle

126 So. 3d 1155, 2012 WL 2361748, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 10122

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 22, 2012 | Docket: 60236202

Cited 1 times | Published

punitive damages were excessive pursuant to section 768.74(5), Florida Statutes: I am [] convinced that

Parrish v. City of Orlando

53 So. 3d 1199, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1562, 2011 WL 470117

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 11, 2011 | Docket: 60298023

Cited 1 times | Published

consideration of a motion for additur is governed by section 768.74, Florida Statutes (2009), which requires the

Spencer v. BR Contracting, Inc.

935 So. 2d 1289, 2006 WL 2447643

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 25, 2006 | Docket: 1671082

Cited 1 times | Published

for additur and remittitur are governed by section 768.74, Florida Statutes. Although it appears that

Rochelle v. STATE, DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS

927 So. 2d 997, 2006 WL 908187

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 11, 2006 | Docket: 1764856

Cited 1 times | Published

circumstances that were presented to the jury. § 768.74(1), Fla. Stat. (2001). Once a trial court determines

Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Young

848 So. 2d 1242, 2003 WL 21537344

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 9, 2003 | Docket: 1309406

Cited 1 times | Published

all such awards be adequate and not excessive." § 768.74(3), Fla. Stat. (2001). The itemized verdict form

ITT HARTFORD INS. COMPANY OF THE SOUTHEAST v. Owens

760 So. 2d 210, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 4553, 2000 WL 390393

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 19, 2000 | Docket: 1324787

Cited 1 times | Published

Section 768.043(1) is virtually identical to Section 768.74, and that the operative word in both statutes

Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Milton C. Brilus and Beatrice J. Brilus

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 19, 2025 | Docket: 69651317

Published

So. 3d 1059, 1072 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). Section 768.74, Florida Statutes (2023), provides that a trial

Taxinet Corp. v. Santiago Leon

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Aug 19, 2024 | Docket: 67818684

Published

Argued: Sep 21, 2023

the damages award based on Fla. Stat. § 768.74, so we do not discuss it. Compare Kerrivan, 953

City of Gainesville, d/b/a Gainesville Regional Utilities v. Jacob T. Rodgers

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 29, 2023 | Docket: 68042992

Published

non-economic damages award was excessive. See § 768.74(3), Fla. Stat. (2015). The trial court denied

AM Grand Court Lakes LLC v. Rockhill Insurance Company

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Jun 5, 2023 | Docket: 66760583

Published

Argued: Jan 25, 2023

13 Fla. Stat. § 768.74(1). 10 To determine whether an award is exces-

Brinda Coates, etc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 5, 2023 | Docket: 66701383

Published

(2021). The second statute, section 768.74, remains the same. See § 768.74, Fla. Stat. (2021).

In Re: Amendments to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.530 and 1.535

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Aug 25, 2022 | Docket: 64921100

Published

defines a “proper motion” as referenced in section 768.74, Florida Statutes. A motion that does not provide

J.L. PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. TIMOTHY F. SCHNURR, as of the Estate of James V. Schnurr, and CHRISTINE SCHNURR

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 5, 2022 | Docket: 61689406

Published

evidence. In doing so, the trial court noted that section 768.74 requires a trial court to determine whether

VICTOR LERNER v. INO HALEGUA

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 5, 2022 | Docket: 61689347

Published

adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons,” § 768.74(5)(d),(e), Fla. Stat. (2021), we find no error

BAPTIST HEALTH MEDICAL GROUP ORTHOPEDICS, LLC, etc. v. ALFREDO VICTOR FERNANDEZ, etc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 13, 2021 | Docket: 60642697

Published

scrutiny by the courts.” § 768.74(3), Fla. Stat (2021). To this end, section 768.74, Florida Statutes

LAURENTINA KOCIK, as Personal Representative of the ESTATE of JUREK KOCIK v. EDDY PABLO RODRIGUEZ

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 8, 2021 | Docket: 60368607

Published

In support, the circuit court’s order cited section 768.74(5)(d), Florida Statutes (2019), and Ortlieb

ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. v. LISA SPEARMAN

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 28, 2021 | Docket: 59860085

Published

failed to consider the factors set forth in section 768.74(5) of the Florida Statutes, as it was required

BRIAN FERNALLD v. ABB, INC., LEWIS NODDIN, and LAURA NODDIN

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 10, 2021 | Docket: 59719249

Published

circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact.” § 768.74(1), Fla. Stat. (2019). In determining whether

GLORIA A. CABRERA v. WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 16, 2020 | Docket: 18747979

Published

consideration of a motion for additur is governed by section 768.74, Florida Statutes (2020), which requires the

SUSAN MATRISCIANI v. GARRISON PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 10, 2020 | Docket: 17240828

Published

plaintiff is excessive, it may order a remittitur. See § 768.74(2), Fla. Stat. (2017). In determining whether

SUSAN MATRISCIANI v. GARRISON PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 10, 2020 | Docket: 17237160

Published

plaintiff is excessive, it may order a remittitur. See § 768.74(2), Fla. Stat. (2017). In determining whether

In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure - 2019 Regular-Cycle Report

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 16, 2020 | Docket: 17073632

Published

defines a “proper motion” as referenced in section 768.74, Florida Statutes. A motion that does not provide

Kenneth Kerrivan v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Mar 24, 2020 | Docket: 17007416

Published

03/24/2020 Page: 12 of 31 (quoting Fla. Stat. § 768.74(1)). In imposing this requirement, the Florida

Rodriguez v. Miami-Dade Cnty.

339 F. Supp. 3d 1279

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Sep 24, 2018 | Docket: 64321076

Published

also argues an additur is appropriate under Section 768.74, Florida Statutes, which permits courts to

WAL-MART STORES, INC. v. DERRICK THORNTON

241 So. 3d 867

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 7, 2018 | Docket: 6326613

Published

the motion for remittitur in accordance with section 768.74, Florida Statutes. The reconsideration must

Joan Schoeff, etc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 14, 2017 | Docket: 6241642

Published

unconstitutional, remittitur was necessary under section 768.74(5)(e), Florida Statutes (2012), because Mrs

FLNC, Inc. v. Ramos

220 So. 3d 1220, 2017 WL 2200224, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 7180

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 19, 2017 | Docket: 6066360

Published

motion for additur-or new trial was based upon section 768.74, Florida Statutes (201-5), which provides in

Crane Co. v. DeLisle

206 So. 3d 94, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 16761

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 9, 2016 | Docket: 63630781

Published

because [the defendant] could afford to do so”). Section 768.74(3), Florida Statutes (2016), requires the court

Faith Freight Forwarding Corp. v. Anias

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 7, 2016 | Docket: 4419704

Published

remittitur does not agree to the remitted amount. See § 768.74(4), Fla. Stat. (2014). We also note that the final

Safeco Insurance Co. v. Fridman

196 So. 3d 1284, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 12150, 2016 WL 4252796

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 12, 2016 | Docket: 4136151

Published

capacity were not supported by the evidence. Section 768.74(1), Florida Statutes (2011), provides that

Donald Emmons v. Thomas Wayne Akers II and Cassandra Akers

187 So. 3d 900

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 20, 2016 | Docket: 3046126

Published

§' 768.043(1), Fla. Stat. * “Section 768.74 did not alter the ‘longstanding principles’

Flying Fish Bikes, Inc. v. Giant Bicycle, Inc.

181 F. Supp. 3d 957, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21140, 2016 WL 695972

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Feb 22, 2016 | Docket: 64308506

Published

Grp., Inc., 945 So.2d 1246, 1263 (Fla.2006). Section 768.74, - Florida Statutes, lists considerations “[i]n

Orange County v. Buchman

183 So. 3d 457, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 310, 2016 WL 81661

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 8, 2016 | Docket: 60253015

Published

Bennett was decided prior to the enactment of section 768.74(1), Florida Statutes (2014), which authorizes

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company v. Joan Schoeff, as Personal Representative of the Estate of James Edward Schoeff

178 So. 3d 487, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 16577, 2015 WL 6735297

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 4, 2015 | Docket: 3009688

Published

circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact.” § 768.74(1), Fla. Stat. (2012). “If the court finds that

Olen Properties Corp. v. Rebecca Cancel

178 So. 3d 437, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 14923, 2015 WL 5836043

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 7, 2015 | Docket: 2865050

Published

2d 634 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); see also § 768.74(5), Fla. Stat. (2013). We remand for the trial

Jeffrey P. Arnold and Tina Arnold v. Security National Insurance Company

174 So. 3d 1082, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 13807

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 16, 2015 | Docket: 2808048

Published

carefully considering the criteria set forth in Section 768.74(5), finds the noneconomic damages were excessive

Brown v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

113 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 2015 WL 3796282, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79980

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Jun 18, 2015 | Docket: 64302768

Published

the reasonableness of the award under § 768.74(5). Section 768.74(5) sets out criteria to assess the reasonableness

REWJB Dairy Plant Associates v. Bombardier Capital, Inc.

152 So. 3d 21, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 17666, 2014 WL 5462520

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 29, 2014 | Docket: 1453231

Published

Post-Trial Motions Pursuant to section 768.74, Florida Statutes (2012) 9 , Bombardier

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Webb

130 So. 3d 262, 2013 WL 6635745, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 19913

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 17, 2013 | Docket: 60237700

Published

remitted damage amounts. We agree, and reverse. Section 768.74, Florida Statutes, permits the trial court

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Smith

131 So. 3d 18, 2013 WL 6097288, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 18521

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 20, 2013 | Docket: 60238033

Published

statutorily-required “close scrutiny” spelled out in section 768.74(3), Florida Statutes (“It is the intention

Azoulay v. Condominium Ass'n of La Mer Estates, Inc.

94 So. 3d 686, 2012 WL 3326306, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 13568

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 15, 2012 | Docket: 60310958

Published

scant and not in support of such an award. Section 768.74, Florida Statutes, provides the criteria for

Parham v. FLORIDA HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER, INC.

35 So. 3d 920, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 4183, 2010 WL 1222925

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 31, 2010 | Docket: 1645958

Published

Second, it filed a motion for remittitur under section 768.74, Florida Statutes (2003). Third, it filed a

Current Builders v. First Sealord Sur.

984 So. 2d 526, 2008 WL 2261502, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 8127

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 4, 2008 | Docket: 1686134

Published

additur or new trial regarding the jury's award. Section 768.74, Florida Statutes, governs additur and applies

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Bufalo

909 So. 2d 464, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 13302, 2005 WL 2016829

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 24, 2005 | Docket: 64840163

Published

2001); § 768.74, Fla. Stat. (2004). Before a new trial on damages can be awarded, section 768.74, Florida

Collins v. Douglass

874 So. 2d 629, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 5042, 2004 WL 784505

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 14, 2004 | Docket: 64830918

Published

of Stuckey, 749 So.2d 490, 498 (Fla.1999). Section 768.74, Florida Statutes (2003), vests the trial judge

Arena Parking, Inc. v. Lon Worth Crow Insurance Agency

802 So. 2d 344, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 13433, 2001 WL 1130678

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 26, 2001 | Docket: 64810946

Published

ordered a new trial on damages. Pursuant to section 768.74(4), Florida Statutes (1999), “[i]f the party

Alaqua Lakes Realty, Inc. v. Burch

790 So. 2d 604, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 10965, 2001 WL 874222

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 3, 2001 | Docket: 64807133

Published

alternative a new trial, pursuant to section 768.74.3 Section 768.74 provides factors to be taken into consideration

Cabrera v. Fife

789 So. 2d 1089, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 8318, 2001 WL 686794

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 20, 2001 | Docket: 64806894

Published

relation to the amount of damages proved. See § 768.74(5)(d), Fla. Stat. (2000). In light of the facts

Marlo v. K-Mart Corp.

756 So. 2d 213, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 4564, 2000 WL 390250

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 19, 2000 | Docket: 64796912

Published

no violation by the jury of the standards of section 768.74(5)(a-e), Florida Statutes (1997), which reads:

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Coleman

745 So. 2d 423, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 14544, 1999 WL 992704

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 3, 1999 | Docket: 64792413

Published

therefore, have ordered a remittitur pursuant to section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1997). We reverse and remand

Silverman v. Gockman

714 So. 2d 671, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 9769, 1998 WL 438898

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 5, 1998 | Docket: 64781893

Published

overlooked some of the criteria which, according to section 768.74(5), Florida Statutes (1995), the court shall

City of St. Petersburg v. Hackman

672 So. 2d 42, 1996 WL 38842

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 2, 1996 | Docket: 1763457

Published

shall enter an order of remittitur pursuant to section 768.74, Florida Statutes (Supp.1986), reducing the

National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Ahmed

653 So. 2d 1055, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 3650, 1995 WL 169991

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 12, 1995 | Docket: 64755775

Published

the five criteria of the remittitur statute, section 768.74(5), should be considered by this court in determining

Nordt v. Wenck

653 So. 2d 450, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 3469, 1995 WL 144259

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 5, 1995 | Docket: 64755476

Published

influenced by passion, prejudice, or improper motive. § 768.74, Fla.Stat. (1993). In Lassitter v. International

Maison Realty, Inc. v. Meredith Corp.

633 So. 2d 27, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 301, 1994 WL 19641

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 26, 1994 | Docket: 64746789

Published

as an order granting an additur pursuant to section 768.74(2), Florida Statutes (1991). Accordingly, we

Fitzmaurice v. Smith

593 So. 2d 1197, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 1332, 1992 WL 26487

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 19, 1992 | Docket: 64665395

Published

in the alternative, a new trial on damages. Section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1987), permits a trial court

Shalhub v. Andrews Roofing & Improvement Co.

530 So. 2d 1052, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2093, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3964, 1988 WL 91185

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 6, 1988 | Docket: 64636929

Published

Margoa, Inc., 281 So.2d 406 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); .Section 768.74 Florida Statutes (1987). The appellant secondly