CopyCited 174 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1999 WL 669205
...weight of the evidence. A new trial may be ordered on the grounds that the verdict is excessive or inadequate when (1) the verdict shocks the judicial conscience or (2) the jury has been unduly influenced by passion or prejudice. The procedure under section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1997), for remittitur and additur apply only upon the proper motion of a party....
0 red0 yellow167 green1 procedural
CopyCited 55 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2003 WL 21180319
...t precede any finding of damages"). [17] Without this prior assessment it is impossible to determine whether punitive damages bear a "reasonable" relationship to the actual harm inflicted on the plaintiff, as required by Florida and federal law. See § 768.74(5)(d), Fla....
0 red0 yellow103 green0 procedural
CopyCited 51 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1999 A.M.C. 2286, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 13191
... Colombia, we agree with the district court that a secondary purpose underlying Florida's compensation
scheme is that damages awards are sufficient to compensate survivors of a decedent while not posing an
excessive and unfair burden upon domiciliary defendants. Cf. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 768.74(1) (conferring
discretion to courts to review damages awards to ensure that they are neither excessive nor inadequate).
We first examine whether Colombia's policy of compensating its domiciliaries would be served in
this case....
0 red0 yellow136 green0 procedural
CopyCited 51 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 232, 108 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 111, 2010 WL 20987
...le 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.
Fla. Stat. § 768.74(5)....
...al process conducted by
reasonable people.
Since the compensatory award falls within a range of damages reasonable
under Florida law, it does not constitute a clear abuse of discretion for the district
court to let it stand. Cf. Fla. Stat. § 768.74(6) (“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.”)....
...determined that it was unreasonable. See id. §
768.73(1)(d). The factors the trial
court is obliged to consider when assessing the excessiveness of a punitive award
are the same factors it must consider when assessing the amount of a compensatory
award. See id. §
768.74(5)....
...1985), a “jury may properly punish each wrongdoer by
exacting from his pocketbook a sum of money which, according to his financial
ability, will hurt, but not bankrupt.” Bould v. Touchette,
349 So. 2d 1181, 1186-87
(Fla. 1977).
This punitive award of $500,000 does not offend Florida Statute §
768.74(5)....
0 red0 yellow99 green0 procedural
CopyCited 29 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1991 WL 253375
...r a directed verdict. As to the points on cross appeal, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in entering the order of remittitur. Zambrano v. Devanesan,
484 So.2d 603 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), rev. denied,
494 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 1986). Section
768.74(4), Fla....
0 red0 yellow32 green0 procedural
CopyCited 23 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2002 WL 506947
...3d DCA 2000). If an appellate court determines that reasonable persons could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, there can be no finding of an abuse of discretion. Brown v. Estate of Stuckey,
749 So.2d 490 (Fla.1999). Section
768.74, Florida Statutes governs additur and authorizes trial courts to review the amount of damages awarded under a verdict to determine if they are "inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact." §
768.74(1). In denying additur, the trial court stated that it considered the statutory guidelines found in section
768.74(5): [7] *697 2....
0 red0 yellow25 green0 procedural
CopyCited 21 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 520, 1989 Fla. LEXIS 1005, 1989 WL 120849
...Pierre is one of the conflict cases on which we base our jurisdiction. [3] It should be noted that the legislature has subsequently addressed remittitur and additur, thus giving these devices a statutory basis. Ch. 86-160, § 53, Laws of Fla. (codified at § 768.74, Fla....
0 red0 yellow20 green0 procedural
CopyCited 18 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 4734565, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 14155
...xpressly and specifically accept the remittitur; and (2) the trial court determined that the compensatory damages award was excessive and “seemed to be the result of prejudice or passion.” Pursuant to Florida’s remittitur and ad-ditur statute, section 768.74 of the Florida Statutes, (2012), the trial court has the responsibility to review the amount of an award and determine if it is excessive or inadequate “in light of the facts and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact.” § 768.74(1). “If the court finds that the amount awarded is excessive or inadequate, it shall order a remittitur or additur, as the case may be.” § 768.74(2)....
...r 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. § 768.74(5) (emphasis added)....
...ion appeared to be a result of prejudice or passion is not well-taken. To the contrary, a remittitur is the prescribed remedy for a trial court’s finding that an award may be excessive because it is indicative of prejudice, passion, or corruption. §
768.74(5)(a); Glabman v. De La Cruz,
954 So.2d 60, 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (reversing a jury award, remanding to the trial court with instructions to follow section
768.74, and ordering a remittitur because the verdict on damages was so excessive that it only could have been the result of passion or emotion)....
...The statute expressly provides that upon making such a finding, the trial court must first order a remittitur or additur, and then, only after the party adversely affected by the change in damages does not agree, the trial court must order a new trial on the damages amount. §§ 768.74(2), (4), Fla....
...Alexander’s mental pain and loss of consortium with her husband of almost thirty-eight years had a value of $20 million. The trial judge, who also was able to observe Mrs. Alexander and review all the evidence presented by both parties, applied the mandates of section 768.74 to remit the compensatory damages award to $10 million....
...Townsend,
90 So.3d at 312 ; see also Cohen,
102 So.3d at 19 (affirming a $10 million compensatory damages award on evidence “nearly identical to the evidence relied upon ... in Townsend ”). The trial court is in the best position to determine whether the compensatory damages award is excessive. See §
768.74(6) (underscoring the trial court’s discretionary authority to review the damage amounts awarded by the jury in light of the “fundamental precept of American jurisprudence ......
...Accordingly, because the evidence presented at trial, which has already been addressed in this opinion, “bears a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered,” we conclude the remitted $10 million compensatory damages award was not excessive. Townsend,
90 So.3d at 311 (quoting §
768.74(5)); Cohen,
102 So.3d at 18 (“[A jury] verdict should not be disturbed unless it is so inordinately large as obviously to exceed the maximum limit of a reasonable range within which the jury may properly operate.”) (quoting Aills v....
...carefully wrapped in presumption of correctness and securely tied with the strong cord of a jury verdict.' ”) (quoting Smith v. Goodpasture,
179 So.2d 240, 240-41 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)). . Citing to Olivas v. Peterson,
969 So.2d 1138 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), Lorillard alleges that section
768.74 does not require an express objection to a remittitur in order to preserve entitlement to a new trial under the statute....
0 red1 yellow22 green0 procedural
CopyCited 18 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1998 WL 821756
...The jury awarded no damages for Marcia Aurbach's loss of consortium. She filed a motion for additur on her consortium claim. The trial court's entry of final judgment after hearing all post-trial motions was tantamount to a denial of the motion for additur. Section 768.74(1), Florida Statutes (1997), authorizes additur in cases where the trial court determines that an award of damages is "inadequate in light of the facts and *758 circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact." Section 768.74 did not alter the "longstanding principles" governing a trial court's deference to a jury's assessment of damages....
...ro verdict is inadequate as a matter of law. See Waldron v. Dorsey,
585 So.2d 403, 404 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Christopher v. Bonifay,
577 So.2d 617 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). An award that is inadequate as a matter of law may be ameliorated by additur under section
768.74....
...Under these circumstances, the trial court abused its discretion in denying Marcia Aurbach's motion for additur. We remand with direction to grant the motion for additur and to determine an appropriate amount for her loss of consortium pursuant to section 768.74....
...We reject the Gallinas' argument that Marcia Aurbach waived her entitlement to additur because she did not file a motion for new trial. Typically, a motion for additur will be coupled with a motion for new trial. See Trawick, Fla.Prac. and Proc. § 26-1 (1993 ed.). However, the only pleading requirement in section 768.74 is that a "proper motion" be made for remittitur and additur....
...The statute does not mandate the concomitant filing of a motion for new trial. Especially for a limited issue such as loss of consortium, a party may choose not to seek the expensive, extensive relief of a new trial, preferring instead to travel only under section 768.74 with a motion for remittitur or additur. Of course, if a motion is granted under the statute, the "party adversely affected" may elect not to agree with the ruling, so that a new trial on damages may be necessary. See § 768.74(4), Fla.Stat....
0 red0 yellow23 green0 procedural
CopyCited 18 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 539838
...[4] The ability to scrutinize a verdict for either inadequacy or excessiveness based on the use of an itemized verdict was part of the stated legislative intent in enacting section
768.77, which mandates itemization of damage amounts broken down into categories. §§
768.74(6),
768.77, Fla....
...Section
768.77 was part of the Tort Reform and Insurance Act, which became effective in 1986. Ch. 86-160, § 56, at 752, Laws of Fla. In fact, the legislative enactment states that "[i]t is the intention of the Legislature that awards of damages be subject to close scrutiny by the courts." §
768.74(3)....
0 red0 yellow21 green0 procedural
CopyCited 15 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 2016, 2006 WL 197182
...Powell,
180 So. 757, 763
(Fla. 1938)). “Damages are also recoverable for mental suffering such as
embarrassment, humiliation, deprivation of liberty, and disgrace and injury to the
person’s feelings and reputation.” Id.; see also Fla. Stat. §
768.74(5).
Barnes & Noble argues that Johnson did not suffer any actual damages such
as medical costs, and the amount awarded was accordingly excessive....
0 red0 yellow27 green0 procedural
CopyCited 17 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1989 WL 73758
...Damage for mental pain and suffering is one of the late developments in the law and its potentialities are not restricted as they formerly were because so much has been learned of the evil consequences that flow from mental injury.
43 So.2d at 636-637. We have reviewed the criteria for remittitur contained in section
768.74(5), Florida Statutes (1985), and find that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering remittitur or new trial on damages....
0 red0 yellow18 green0 procedural
CopyCited 16 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2000 WL 726363
...Her motion was not a motion for a new trial on the grounds that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence or was inadequate as a matter of law. [3] Instead it was a motion for an additur expressly made pursuant to sections
768.043 and
768.74....
...It involves only a claim for unliquidated damages and arises when a party claims that undifferentiated general damages represent an award of a specific kind, the effect of which is to entitle the claimant to other damages as well. Plaintiff's motion for an additur was made pursuant to section 768.74 and its counterpart, section 786.043....
...r or additur. The party may have the matter of damages submitted to another jury. Defendants' attack on the constitutionality of the statute is without merit." Adams v. Wright,
403 So.2d 391, 395 (Fla. 1981). It was only in 1986 with the creation of section
768.74 that the legislature gave judges a general power of additur....
...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." [e.s.] See TRIA §
768.74(6). It therefore made plain that an adjustment of damages by additur or remittitur was dependent on the consent of the adverse party and that party's right to have a new jury try the issue. See §
768.74(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."); and Adams v. Wright,
403 So.2d at 395. One important area in which motions for new trials on weight of the evidence grounds differ from these section
768.74 motions for additurs and remittiturs is in regard to the common law willingness to tolerate some lack of uniformity and predictability in personal injury damages awardsi.e., in permitting differing awards even on similar facts....
...findings of influence outside it support his determination."
239 So.2d at 14. This judicially tolerated "inconstancy of result" inevitably diminishes the ability of litigants and their lawyers to predict what they might reasonably expect in a trial. Section
768.74, however, is drafted to a contrary purpose. It requires that damages awards be scrutinized for adequacy or excessiveness on statutory standards of excessiveness or adequacy. See §
768.74(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.") and
768.74(6) ("[I]t 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.")....
...s awarded. In short additurs and remittiturs under this statute in the circumstances of this case are impossible without the legislatively mandated itemized verdicts. Consequently I would hold that the statutory power of additur and remittitur under section 768.74 requires the use of an itemized verdict to preserve the issue....
...er the amount awarded was for medical expense, lost income which plaintiff also sought, or both. Moreover, if the legislature had wanted to make an itemized verdict a requirement for seeking a remittitur or additur it would have said so. Instead, in section 768.74, authorizing remittitur and additur, the legislature adhered to the "discretionary standard of review for trial courts." § 768.74(6), Fla....
...retion. [3] Her motion said: "Comes now the Plaintiff ... and files this Motion for Additur or motion for New Trial on Damages for past and future pain and suffering past and future lost wages and loss of earning capacity pursuant to Florida Statute 768.74, and in support therefore state as follows: 1....
...Section
768.043, Florida Statutes (1993), is the controlling and applicable statute authorizing the trial court to order, as an alternative to a new trial, an additur to a jury award upon finding the amount of damages awarded by the jury is clearly inadequate [followed by text of section
768.043]. 2. Section
768.74, Florida Statutes, requires the trial court to review an award of money damages for excessiveness or inadequacy. Florida has long held that there should be a granting of new trial or additur where the amount of damages awarded is inadequate or inconsistent with either the evidence or other parts of the verdict." [4] See §§
768.043 and
768.74, Fla....
...utomobile accident cases, and the latter applying to all tort and contract actions. The two statutes are substantively identical; the only textual difference is the addition of the adverb "clearly" in two places. We note that if sections
768.043 and
768.74 were in conflict section
768.043 would control....
0 red0 yellow16 green0 procedural
CopyCited 15 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2003 WL 21910630
...Granting an Additur The parties agree that the standard of review of an order granting additur is "clear abuse of discretion." Basel v. McFarland & Sons, Inc.,
815 So.2d 687, 696 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Aurbach v. Gallina,
721 So.2d 756 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Section
768.74(1), Florida Statutes (1999), states: (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 plain...
...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. "Section
768.74 did not alter the `longstanding principles' governing a trial court's deference to a jury's assessment of damages." Aurbach,
721 So.2d at 758, quoting Poole v....
0 red0 yellow17 green0 procedural
CopyCited 15 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 69, 1996 Fla. LEXIS 101, 1996 WL 63079
...Beers, Maitland, for Respondent. GRIMES, Chief Justice. We have for review Veterans Auto Sales & Leasing Co. v. Poole,
649 So.2d 264 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), wherein the district court of appeal certified the following question to be of great public importance: If section
768.74 permits a trial judge to order a new trial unless the affected party agrees to accept a remittitur or additur when a reasonable person could agree that the record supports the jury decision (assuming no trial error or jury misconduct),...
...99 in medical expenses and for the requested increase in future support for Andrew and Sara Pritchard but reversed the additur for pain and suffering. The district *191 court analyzed the pain and suffering award in light of the factors set forth in section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1993), which provides for remittitur or additur in cases where a verdict is rendered awarding money damages to a plaintiff....
...the validity of the order. We have chosen not to answer the certified question because it appears to address an abstract scenario which may not relate to the instant case. However, we do not lightly dismiss the concerns which prompted the question. Section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1993), provides that the trial judge shall grant a remittitur or additur when the jury award is excessive or inadequate....
0 red0 yellow16 green0 procedural
CopyCited 47 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1990 WL 75061
...We, therefore, refuse to overturn the jury’s verdict on the causation issue. D. The Appealability of the Additur Order The defendant’s fourth argument challenges the order of the additur by the district court. The additur was ordered pursuant to Florida Statutes § 768.74....
...warded 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. Fla.Stat.Ann. § 768.74 (West Supp.1970)....
CopyCited 12 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 2002 WL 716263
...issue of damages: *575 We have chosen not to answer the certified question [4] because it appears to address an abstract scenario which may not relate to the instant case. However, we do not lightly dismiss the concerns which prompted the question. Section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1993), provides that the trial judge shall grant a remittitur or additur when the jury award is excessive or inadequate....
...weight of the evidence. A new trial may be ordered on the grounds that the verdict is excessive or inadequate when (1) the verdict shocks the judicial conscience or (2) the jury has been unduly influenced by passion or prejudice. The procedure under section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1997), for remittitur and additur apply only upon the proper motion of a party....
...guage of the statute and analogous precedent concerning *576 remittiturs. [5] Cf. Aurbach v. Gallina,
721 So.2d 756, 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (observing that, while a party need not file a motion for new trial in seeking a remittitur or additur under section
768.74, Florida Statutes (1977), "[o]f course, if a motion is granted under the statute, the `party adversely affected' may elect not to agree with the ruling, so that a new trial on damages may be necessary," citing section
768.74(4)); Born v....
...The *577 party may have the matter of damages submitted to another jury. Defendants' attack on the constitutionality of the statute is without merit. Id. at 394-95 (emphasis added); cf. also Beauvais v. Edell,
760 So.2d 262, 269 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (Farmer, J., concurring) (citing section
768.74(4) and Adams,
403 So.2d at 395, in observing that the Legislature "made plain that an adjustment of damages by additur or remittitur was dependent on the consent of the adverse party and that party's right to have a new jury try the issue") review denied,
780 So.2d 912 (Fla.2001); Jarvis,
743 So.2d at 1221 (Hazouri, J., concurring specially) (concluding that, once the trial court grants an additur or a remittitur, the mandatory language of section
768.74(4) entitles the adversely affected party to a new trial upon request)....
...1089, 1091 (1985) ("If a special verdict is used, however, error may only affect a few of the jury's findings, thus limiting a second trial to the issues covered by the tainted findings."). We find no authority for the dissenting view here, [7] which would interpret section *579 768.74(4) to require a new trial as to all damage elementsincluding those which the record reflects are not in dispute resulting in a needless waste of time and resources for both the litigants and the trial judge....
...Thereafter, this Court upheld the constitutionality of the statute as being remedial. Judge Farmer's concurring opinion in Beauvais v. Edell,
760 So.2d 262, 266-67 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), sets out important precedent: Plaintiff's motion for an additur was made pursuant to section
768.74 and its counterpart, section 786.043[sic]....
...ur or additur. The party may have the matter of damages submitted to another jury. Defendants' attack on the constitutionality of the statute is without merit." Adams v. Wright,
403 So.2d 391, 395 (Fla.1981). It was only in 1986 with the creation of section
768.74 that the legislature gave judges a general power of additur....
...FREIDIN: Since THE COURT: I am not going to ask them about that specific figure. MR. FREIDIN: Okay. [4] In Veterans Auto Sales & Leasing Co. v. Poole,
649 So.2d 264 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), the district court of appeal certified the following question as one of great public importance: If section
768.74 permits a trial judge to order a new trial unless the affected party agrees to accept a remittitur or additur when a reasonable person could agree that the record supports the jury decision (assuming no trial error or jury misconduct),...
...r; rather, it concerns the grant of a new trial where a court has determined that the verdict in a case is grossly inadequate. The trial court's authority to do so was well entrenched in Florida's common law prior to codification of the principle in section 768.74(4), Florida Statutes....
0 red0 yellow11 green0 procedural
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1992 WL 277248
...The body of the act contains further findings, including, "the purpose of this act [is] ... to ensure that injured persons recover reasonable damages... ." Id., § 2. Two important aspects of tort reform are the itemized verdict statute, section
768.77, Florida Statutes (1989), and the remittitur and additur statute, section
768.74, Florida Statutes (1989)....
...ff, serves the beneficial purpose of allowing the court to scrutinize each item of damages in light of the evidence actually presented in support of that item. Edward M. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Van Dyke,
590 So.2d 1023 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). By passage of section
768.74, the legislature stated its intention that awards of damages be subject to "close scrutiny by the courts and that all such awards be adequate and not excessive." Section
768.74(3), Fla....
...the amount awarded bears a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injuries 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. § 768.74(5), Fla....
...ered. Accordingly, and with due regard for the "soundness and logic" of judicial resolution of the often perplexing problems raised in cases involving noneconomic loss, we reverse and remand this case for a new trial on past noneconomic damages. See § 768.74(6), Florida Statutes (1989)....
...concerning the value of pain and suffering into an objective determination with particularized standards. While I don't disagree that it was the legislative intent to provide for more predictability in jury verdicts in tort cases by the enactment of section 768.74(3), Florida Statutes (1989), I do not believe that the basic nature of these types of damages has changed....
...Thus, while criteria have been set out in the statute to be utilized in considering the adequacy of excessiveness of all damages, these criteria do not reach the certainty of particularized standards especially in the case of noneconomic damages. Prior to the enactment of the statutory criteria in section 768.74(5), Fla....
0 red0 yellow14 green0 procedural
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 3510, 2004 WL 534047
...Rosen,
214 So.2d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)). REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL ON DAMAGES. PETERSON and PALMER, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Final judgment was entered in the amount of $112,000 after the reduction for Dekylen's comparative negligence. [2] By enacting section
768.74, Florida Statutes (1986), the Legislature shed further light on the factors to be considered by the court in considering the adequacy of a verdict. Section
768.74(5) provides: 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...
0 red0 yellow13 green0 procedural
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 910742
...The verdict is to be "reduced to the highest amount which the jury could have properly awarded." Rety,
546 So.2d at 420 (citing Lassitter,
349 So.2d at 627). On remand, the trial court must follow the appropriate statutory procedures, set forth in section
768.74, Florida Statutes (2006), when ordering remittitur. See §
768.74, Fla....
0 red0 yellow17 green0 procedural
CopyCited 33 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
...ida’s compensation scheme
is that damages awards are sufficient to compensate survivors of a decedent while not
posing an excessive and unfair burden upon domiciliary defendants. Cf. Fla. Stat.
61
Ann. § 768.74(1) (conferring discretion to courts to review damages awards to ensure
that they are neither excessive nor inadequate).
We first examine whether Colombia’s policy of compensating its domiciliaries
would be served in this case....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1993 WL 182478
...nt of the verdict. We have reviewed the trial court's order and his findings denying the motion for additur are supported by the record. In construing section
768.043, Florida Statutes (1985), a predecessor statute substantially identical in text to section
768.74, Florida Statutes, the supreme court reiterated that "the trial judge does not sit as a seventh juror with veto power......
0 red0 yellow9 green0 procedural
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...able
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.
§ 768.74(5), Fla....
0 red0 yellow14 green0 procedural
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...The verdict should be disturbed only when “it is so inordinately large as obviously to exceed the maximum limit of a reasonable range within which the jury may properly operate.” Id. at 1184-85 . These general principles are consistent with the legislative policy expressed in section 768.74, Florida Statutes (2009). This statute 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.” § 768.74(6), Fla. Stat. But the statute also requires courts to give “close scrutiny” to damage awards, section 768.74(3), Florida Statutes, and it lists several criteria for the court to consider in determining whether an award “exceeds a reasonable range of damages.” § 768.74(5), Fla....
...he award is not so inordinately large that it shocks our collective judicial conscience. Cf. id. at 347 (affirming $4.4 million non-economic damage award, but noting the award was “on the outer limit in size”). Judged by the factors set forth in section 768.74(5), Florida Statutes (2009), the amount of compensatory damages in this case is not beyond reason....
0 red0 yellow32 green0 procedural
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2014 WL 1031461, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3916
...the evidence in reaching a verdict or misconceived the merits of the case relating to the amounts of damages;” “the trier of fact took improper elements of damages into account;” and “the amount awarded is [not] supported by the evidence.” § 768.74(5), Fla....
0 red0 yellow13 green0 procedural
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2002 WL 553391
...by the order ....") (quoting Prime Orlando Props. v. Dep't of Bus. Regulation,
502 So.2d 456, 459 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)). The fact that the trial court granted remittitur without providing the plaintiff the opportunity for a new trial, in violation of section
768.74(4), Florida Statutes (2001), does not make the order under review final....
0 red0 yellow11 green0 procedural
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 128019
...NOTES [1] These noneconomic damages were described as: "damages sustained ... for pain and suffering, disability, physical impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life[.]" [2] §
768.043, Fla. Stat. (1989); §
768.74, Fla....
0 red0 yellow11 green0 procedural
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1999 WL 76059
...Fravel challenges the trial court's denial of his motion for remittitur, contending the trial evidence did not support the jury's award of past and future medical expenses. We agree that the $200,000 award of future medical expenses is not supported by the record. Section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1995), provides, in relevant part: 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 render...
...ompensation" for five years. Our review of the evidence reveals that the amount awarded for Emily's future medical expenses does not bear a reasonable relationship to the damages proved at trial. Thus, the award is not supported by the evidence. See § 768.74(5)(e), Fla....
...Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order denying Dr. Fravel's motion for remittitur and remand this matter for entry of an order for remittitur, or, in the alternative, if the plaintiffs do not agree with the remittitur, to order a new trial in this cause on the issue of damages. See § 768.74(4), Fla....
0 red0 yellow16 green0 procedural
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 16277, 2001 WL 1434195
...tentional torts, unless committed in connection with commercial transactions. Alamo Rent-A-Car v. Mancusi,
599 So.2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), approved in part, quashed in part,
632 So.2d 1352 (Fla.1994). Thus it clearly does not apply to this case. Section
768.74 is another potentially applicable statute. The trial court did not expressly address the criteria set forth in section
768.74, "Remittitur and Additur," in denying the defendant-appellant's motion for remittitur. It denied relief on the ground stated that the amount of punitive damages awarded "did not shock the conscience of the court." [6] In any event, the trial court's consideration of section
768.74 does mandate further consideration of the punitive damage award based on federal constitutional criteria, because the criteria in section
768.74 have very little correlation with the criteria set forth in Cooper and BMW v. Gore . The statutory criteria of section
768.74 are: (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...
...nsatory damages, do not rest upon a determination of factual issues. [7] Further, the standard of review by a state appellate court of a trial court's determination under this section is abuse of discretion, [8] or under the statute, close scrutiny. § 768.74(3), Fla....
...does it enter the zone of arbitrariness that violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
517 U.S. at 568,
116 S.Ct. 1589 (emphasis supplied). Furthermore, claims of excessiveness relating to capped punitive damage awards are dealt with pursuant to the provisions of section
768.74, Florida Statutes, which allow for remittitur of excessive awards. See §
768.73(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (1993) (now found in section
768.73(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1999); providing that section
768.74 applies to review punitive damage awards)....
0 red0 yellow9 green0 procedural
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2003 WL 1239998
...We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the security camera videotapes. Nor did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying Hendry's request for remittitur. A remittitur is entered when the amount awarded is excessive or contrary to the evidence. Fla. Stat. § 768.74(1)(2002). Section 768.74(4) provides that, "[i]f 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." Implicit in this procedure is a remittitur amount that the adverse party can accept in lieu of a new trial....
...Even at oral argument, counsel for Hendry could not give the court a figure which his client would consider as not excessive. In Brown v. Estate of Stuckey,
749 So.2d 490, 498 (Fla. 1999), the Florida Supreme Court stated that the "procedure under section
768.74, Florida Statutes (1997), for remittitur and additur apply only upon the proper motion of a party." (emphasis added)....
0 red0 yellow9 green0 procedural
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2002 WL 397469
...Because the evidence produced at trial supports an award of compensatory damages, the trial court erred by directing a verdict for nominal damages. We next turn to the alternative ruling by the trial court granting Eckerd's motion for remittitur and reducing the award of damages to one hundred dollars. Section 768.74(1), Florida Statutes (1993), states that upon proper motion a court has the responsibility to review an award of money damages to determine whether the award is excessive or inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances that were presented to the trier of fact. Section *988 768.74(2), Florida Statutes (1993), provides that if a court finds the amount awarded is excessive or inadequate, the court shall order a remittitur or additur. If the party adversely affected by the remittitur or additur does not agree, the court shall order a new trial on the issue of damages only. § 768.74(4), Fla....
...r 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. § 768.74(5), Fla....
...d dollars, the final judgment must be reversed. See Rety v. Green,
546 So.2d 410, 418-19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). A new trial on the issue of damages is appropriate since Normius has not agreed to accept the reduced amount awarded by the trial court. See §
768.74(4)....
0 red0 yellow10 green0 procedural
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2000 WL 826864
...Gallina,
721 So.2d 756, 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). The trial court denied Arena Parking's motion for additur without stating any reasons for the exercise of its discretion. Under the facts of this case, we believe this was a clear abuse of discretion. In section
768.74(1), Florida Statutes (1997), the legislature authorizes trial courts to review the amount of damages awarded under a verdict to determine if they are "inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact." Section
768.74(5) provides further guidance. When presented with an additur motion, the trial court must consider whether the jury "misconceived the merits of the case relating to the amounts of damages recoverable," §
768.74(5)(b), and whether it "arrived at the amount of damages by speculation and conjecture." §
768.74(5)(c). The trial court must also determine "[w]hether the amount awarded bears a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered." §
768.74(5)(d). Finally, the court must decide "[w]hether the amount awarded is supported by the evidence and is such that it could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons." §
768.74(5)(e)....
...damages proved. There is no logical explanation as to how reasonable persons who found liability under the promissory estoppel theory ended up awarding only 16% of the damages claimed. The trial court should have ordered an additur and, pursuant to section 768.74(4), if the defendants disagreed to the additur ordered, then ordered a new trial on damages....
0 red0 yellow10 green0 procedural
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1991 WL 50134
...ed the jury award from $1,672 to $8,671 dollars. Dombrosky cross appeals the denial of his motion for new trial on damages alone. We address the issue raised in the cross appeal first because we find it dispositive. Dombrosky argues that pursuant to section 768.74, Fla....
...amages to Dombrosky. We remand for a new trial on both the issue of liability and the issue of damages. REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent herewith. HERSEY, C.J., LETTS, J., and WALDEN, JAMES H., Senior Judge, concur. NOTES [1] Section 768.74, Fla....
0 red0 yellow5 green0 procedural
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 7584, 1998 WL 335788
...ed by section
768.77. The instant case is very similar to Broward County School Board v. Dombrosky,
579 So.2d 748 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), in which the fourth district remanded for a new trial on damages and liability while recognizing the provisions of section
768.74, Florida Statutes (1987), require that the adverse party be given the choice of accepting the amount of the additur or a new trial on damages only....
...ompromise on the issue of liability when it awarded Jackson her medical expenses without considering non-economic damages. We, accordingly, choose to follow Dombrosky in remanding for a new trial on both liability and damages. We also recognize that section 768.74 instructs that the adverse party be given the choice of accepting the amount of additur or a new trial on damages only, but we do not believe that the legislature intended to preclude a court from ordering a new trial on both damages and liability where the jury compromised the verdict....
...l on both issues of liability and damages. REVERSED and REMANDED. GOSHORN, J., concurs. THOMPSON, J., dissents, with opinion. THOMPSON, Judge, dissenting. I respectfully dissent. I would relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court for compliance with section 768.74, Florida Statutes....
...Plaintiff Shirley Jackson should be given the opportunity to accept the additur, and, if Food Lion, the party adversely affected, does not agree to the additur, the trial court should order a new trial on damages alone, as required by the statute. § 768.74(4), Fla....
...ially gut the remedies of the remittitur and additur statute. The purpose of the remittitur and additur statute is to see "that awards of damages be subject to close scrutiny by the courts and that all such awards be adequate and not excessive." See § 768.74, Fla....
0 red0 yellow7 green0 procedural
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 50
...motion to remit the jury’s compensatory awards to the Decedent’s daughter ($7.5 million) and son ($4 million) because they are excessive and out of line with comparable cases. We disagree. Pursuant to Florida’s remittitur and ad-ditur statute, section 768.74 of the Florida Statutes, the trial court has the responsibility to review the amount of an award and determine if it is excessive or inadequate “in light of the facts and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact.” § 768.74(1), Fla. Stat. (2013). “If the court finds that the amount awarded is excessive or inadequate, it shall order a remittitur or additur, as the case may be.” § 768.74(2), Fla....
...r 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. § 768.74(5), Fla....
0 red0 yellow7 green0 procedural
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 3062, 2003 WL 882356
...AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings. BARFIELD and POLSTON, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Cases 1D01-4210 (the liability appeal) and 1D02-759 (the attorney's fees appeal) were consolidated for the record on appeal, for oral argument, and for purposes of this opinion. [2] See § 768.74(6), Fla....
...1985); Regency Lake Apartments Assocs., Ltd. v. French,
590 So.2d 970, 975 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). [3] See, e.g., Carrousel International Corp. v. Auction Co. of America, Inc.,
674 So.2d 162 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); LoCastro v. Ruane,
525 So.2d 500 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). [4] See §
768.74(1), Fla. Stat. (2001); see also Carrousel International Corp.,
674 So.2d at 163. [5] §
768.74(4), Fla....
0 red0 yellow10 green0 procedural
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 1859108, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8252
...4th DCA 2008); Weinstein Design Group, Inc. v. Fielder,
884 So.2d 990, 1002 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). In ruling on a motion for remittitur, the trial court must evaluate the verdict in light of the evidence presented at trial. Hogan,
986 So.2d at 648 . Section
768.74, Florida Statutes, provides criteria for evaluating awards of damages and mandates that courts subject awards of damages to close scrutiny and make certain that they be adequate and not excessive....
0 red0 yellow9 green0 procedural
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
presented to the trier of fact." Id. §
768.74(1). The remittitur statute explains that although
0 red0 yellow14 green0 procedural
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 21391, 2012 WL 6171608
...e findings on appeal. The trial court abused its discretion in denying PM USA’s motion for new trial based on the compensatory and punitive damages awards. The trial court found that the non-economic and punitive damages were excessive pursuant to section 768.74(5), Florida Statutes (2007): I am [] convinced that the jury panel was conscientious, intelligent, and sincerely intent on doing justice....
...Mora,
940 So.2d 1105 (Fla.2006), and Olivas v. Peterson,
969 So.2d 1138 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), for the proposition that even where a defendant’s motion for remittitur is granted, the party seeking the remittitur may still be “a party adversely affected” under section
768.74, Florida Statutes, the remittitur statute....
0 red0 yellow23 green0 procedural
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 583692
...It awarded appellant $9,000 in damages for medical expenses and lost earnings in the past, but awarded no damages for future medical expenses and lost earnings, and no damages for pain and suffering past or future. Appellant filed a motion for additur pursuant to section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1991), or a new trial, which the trial court denied....
...fering and future lost wages. *161 When a trial court is presented with a motion for an additur, it must review the amount of the award to determine if such amount is inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances presented to the trier of fact. § 768.74(1), Fla....
...r 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. § 768.74(5), Fla....
...agnosis and treatment. The jury did more than award appellant his costs resulting from his confusion over what caused his injury. By so doing, it found appellant's treatment was reasonable and necessary to address the damages caused by appellee. [3] § 768.74(5)(d), Fla. Stat. (1991). [4] § 768.74(5)(e), Fla....
0 red0 yellow5 green0 procedural
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2000 WL 354199
...ot recommended any award to him. It is the responsibility of the trial court, upon proper motion, to review the amount of any award of money damages and, if, in the court's discretion, the court finds the award inadequate, it shall order an additur. § 768.74(1) Fla....
0 red0 yellow22 green0 procedural
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1998 WL 204900
...or future medical care, and non-economic damages. Ramey appeals the denial of his motion for new trial or additur. Winn Dixie cross-appeals the denial of its motion for directed verdict. We reverse and remand the cause for a new trial on all issues. Section 768.74, Florida Statutes, requires the trial court to review an award of money damages for excessiveness or inadequacy....
0 red0 yellow7 green0 procedural
CopyCited 17 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 2261504
...She requested an award for each man's loss of dignity for the 800 days from their rejection for promotion to their retirement. When a defendant files a motion for remittitur, the trial court must evaluate the verdict in light of the evidence presented at trial. In section 768.74, Florida Statutes, the legislature made its intent specific that "awards of damages be subject to close scrutiny by the courts and that all such awards be adequate and not excessive." § 768.74(3), Fla....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2001 WL 454675
...v. reversed. Having so concluded, we now turn to the additurs ordered in the case. Appellants argue that while the trial court identified the inadequacy of the awards at issue, the amount of the additurs ordered were woefully insufficient. We agree. Section 768.74(1), Florida Statutes (1997), authorizes additurs in those cases where the trial court determines that an award of damages is "inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact." Section 768.74 did not alter the longstanding principles governing a trial court's deference to a jury's assessment of damages....
...re generally accepted in the relevant scientific community and the burden is on the proponent of the expert evidence to establish by a preponderance of the evidence the general acceptance of the underlying scientific principles and methodology). [5] Section 768.74 provides in pertinent part: (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 reasonab...
0 red0 yellow6 green0 procedural
CopyCited 4 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28664, 2007 WL 1174111
...t 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. Fla. Stat. § 768.74(5) (2006); see also Spencer v....
0 red0 yellow13 green0 procedural
Cited as authorityDemoree Hadley v. Desiree Perez, Roc Nation, Iconic Creative, LLC, Daniel Bober, Natalie Anderson, SIG 9, LLC, James Fondo, Steven Cady, Jessica Cady, South Broward Hospital District, Odyssey Behavioral Healthcare, Life Skills South Florida Outpatient, LLC, Broward County Sheriff's Office, John Doe #1, John Doe #2, and Rachel Bernstein (2026) CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 3452387
...There are two statutes that address the subject of additur and remittitur. The older statute, section
768.043, Florida Statutes (2005), was adopted in 1977, and addresses remittitur and additur with respect to cases arising out of the operation of motor vehicles. The more recent statute, section
768.74, Florida Statutes (2005), was adopted in 1986, and extended the capacity of a trial judge to order remittitur or additur in any case where the trier of fact determines that liability exists on the part of a defendant and renders a verdict awarding money damages to a plaintiff....
0 red0 yellow4 green0 procedural
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5324, 2012 WL 1150210
...1st DCA 2003). Upon the filing of RJR’s motion for new trial or remittitur, the trial court had to review the amount of damages to determine if the award was excessive “in light of the facts and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact.” § 768.74(1), Fla....
...r 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. § 768.74(5), Fla....
...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.” § 768.74(6), Fla....
...Boemi,
41 So.3d 1022, 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (“The comparison of jury verdicts reached in similar cases provides one method of assessing ‘[wjhether the amount awarded bears a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered.’ §
768.74(5)(d).”)....
0 red0 yellow23 green0 procedural
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1999 WL 1244440
...rt should remit the damage award to $51,000 for each plaintiff. After receiving extensive argument on Franklin Life's motion, the trial court entered an orderthe order under review granting a remittitur or a new trial on damages only pursuant to section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1995)....
...udgment in accordance with the verdict in favor of Franklin Life and Robert Vega Murray against counts I, II, and III of both plaintiffs' third amended complaints.... It is further ordered and adjudged, upon consideration of the factors set forth in section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1995), the amount awarded by the jury to each of the plaintiffs on count IV of the Third Amended Complaints is excessive....
...While Franklin Life does seek reversal of the order which granted, at least in part, its motion for a new trial, it cannot be said that Franklin Life is not aggrieved by the order which, given the appellees' election, in effect denied its motion for new trial on liability by limiting the new trial to damages only pursuant to section 768.74(4), Florida Statutes (1995)....
0 red0 yellow6 green0 procedural
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 11459, 2010 WL 3059445
...e medical expenses to an appropriate amount. If Ms. Aills does not agree to accept the remittitur of the award for future medical expense, then the trial court shall order a new trial on the issue of the damage award for future medical expenses. See § 768.74(4), Fla....
...ture noneconomic damages from $4,000,000 to $1,750,000. We reject Ms. Aills' first argument without discussion and turn to the consideration of her second argument. The trial court's consideration of Dr. Boemi's motion for remittitur was governed by section 768.74....
...Upon the filing of a proper motion, a trial court has the responsibility to review the amount of an award of money damages to determine if the "amount is excessive or inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact." § 768.74(1). "If the [trial] court finds that the amount awarded is excessive or inadequate, it [is required to] order a remittitur or [an] additur." § 768.74(2). "If the party adversely affected by [the] remittitur or additur does not agree, the court [must] order a new trial ... on the issue of damages only." § 768.74(4)....
...r 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. § 768.74(5). Section 768.74 reflects "the intention of the Legislature that awards of damages [should] be ... close[ly] scrutin[ized] by the courts and that all such awards be adequate and not excessive." § 768.74(3)....
...o litigate rather than settle a claim." Id. The comparison of jury verdicts reached in similar cases provides one method of assessing "[w]hether the amount awarded bears a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered." § 768.74(5)(d)....
0 red0 yellow10 green0 procedural
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 6615, 2009 WL 1490826
...May 29, 2009. *839 Brooke C. Madonna and Amy L. Christiansen of Spector Gadon and Rosen, P.C., St. Petersburg, for Appellant. Michael J. Carter of Morgan & Morgan, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee. SAWAYA, J. We are here concerned with the provision of section 768.74(4), Florida Statutes (2005), which provides that "[i]f 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." The issue we must resolve i...
...dequate. The trial court further found that a new trial was necessary to determine the amount of damages only. In this appeal of that order, Westminster argues that the trial court erred in not ordering a new trial on both liability and damages. [2] Section 768.74 authorizes the trial court to grant an additur where the court determines that the award of damages is "inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact." § 768.74(1), Fla. Stat. (2005). The statute further provides, "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." § 768.74(4), Fla....
...esolve. Westminster is correct that the trial court should have granted its request for a new trial on both liability and damages. A line of decisions rendered by the district courts, including this court, hold that despite the limiting provision in section 768.74(4), when a jury award is inadequate and an additur is necessary to correct the inadequacy, a new trial on the issues of liability and damages is appropriate when the liability issue was hotly contested by the parties....
...ity must be unequivocally established and not substantially disputed at trial; nor can it be the result of the jury's compromise on the liability issue...."); Food Lion v. Jackson, 712 *
842 So.2d 800, 803 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (noting the provision in section
768.74(2) that instructs that the adverse party be given the choice of accepting the amount of additur or a new trial on damages only, and holding that a new trial on the issue of liability should also be ordered if liability was hotly contested); Newalk v....
...[2] Westminster also argues that: 1) in granting an additur, the trial court improperly sat as a seventh juror and interfered with the jury's function in our judicial system; 2) if the verdict is inconsistent, Mikesell did not properly preserve her right to seek a new trial; and 3) under the plain language of section 768.74, Florida Statutes, the trial court lacked the authority to award an additur....
0 red0 yellow8 green0 procedural
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 11758, 2011 WL 3108076
...order entered during the relinquishment period. We find not only the original remittitur failed to contain the requisite findings, but the record does not support, and the order entered on relinquishment fails to justify, a remittitur in this case. Section 768.74, Florida Statutes (2010), governs remittiturs and additurs....
...r 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. § 768.74, Fla....
0 red0 yellow8 green0 procedural
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1992 WL 308876
...The trial court's order states in pertinent part: Having reviewed the case and after hearing argument of counsel, the Court finds that the damage award pursuant to the Jury Verdict dated December 6, 1990 is inadequate based upon the criteria set forth in F.S. 768.74(5)....
...If such an order is appealed and does not state the specific grounds, the appellate court shall relinquish its jurisdiction to the trial court for entry of an order specifying the grounds for granting the new trial. We reject appellees' argument that the trial court's reference to the criteria set forth in section 768.74(5), Florida Statutes (1989) satisfied the requirements of rule 1.530(f)....
0 red0 yellow4 green0 procedural
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 4113, 1994 WL 162762
...The record does not demonstrate that the jury "misconceived the merits of the case relating to the amounts of damages recoverable;" that the award does not bear a "reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered;" or that the amount awarded is unsupported by the evidence. Section 768.74(5)(b), (d), (e), Fla....
0 red0 yellow4 green0 procedural
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 16663
...The basis for the jury’s damage award was, as Golzar’s counsel argued in closing, equal to the cumulative hourly pay that Owens would have received as a Wackenhut employee from the date of the incident until the day Owens would reach the age of sixty-five. .Wackenhut also made a post-trial motion pursuant to section 768.74 of the Florida Statutes seeking a remittitur of the non-economic damages awarded....
0 red0 yellow7 green0 procedural
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1989 WL 29043
...McClury,
157 So.2d 545 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963); but see Schaffer v. Pulido,
492 So.2d 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (party who submitted jury instruction and verdict form could not request new trial on invited error). The possibility of an addittur also exists in this case. §
768.74, Fla....
0 red0 yellow7 green0 procedural
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 3964705, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 15313
...This court reviews a trial court’s order denying a motion for remitti-tur for abuse of discretion. City of Hollywood v. Hogan,
986 So.2d 634, 647 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Florida law requires that “awards of damages be subject to close scrutiny by the courts and that all such awards be adequate and not excessive.” §
768.74(3), Fla....
0 red0 yellow14 green0 procedural
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 14208, 2001 WL 1189523
...2d DCA 1967); see also Hendricks v. Dailey,
208 So.2d 101, 103 (Fla.1968). Popular Bank alternatively contends that the trial court reversibly erred by denying its motion to amend judgment which sought a $48,697 remittitur of the jury's award of special transaction fees pursuant to section
768.74, Florida Statutes (1999) [3] , where RCAF's expert witness *620 conservatively estimated such fees to be $451,303, and the jury awarded $500,000 to RCAF....
0 red0 yellow6 green0 procedural
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...13
410, 418 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). See also Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Alexander,
123
So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). This longstanding principle of deference to the
trial court’s review of a jury’s damages award is reinforced by section
768.74,
Florida Statutes (2016) entitled “Remittitur and additur,” which provides:
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...
0 red0 yellow8 green0 procedural
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 1980214, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 7822
...Corbin,
25 So.3d 1260, 1268 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) ("The party claiming an excessive verdict bears the burden to prove that the amount is not supported by the evidence or that the jury was influenced by matters beyond the bounds of the record.”); see also §
768.74, Fla....
0 red0 yellow8 green0 procedural
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 2780988
...Related to a ruling on a motion for new trial is the trial court's responsibility when considering a motion for additur or remittitur "to review the amount" of a damage 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." § 768.74(1), Fla. Stat. (2006). Section 768.74(5) sets forth the criteria that a court "shall consider" in "determining whether an award is excessive or inadequate." In Allstate Insurance Co....
...Unlike the award in Manasse, this award was not merely for palliative care. It provided for the most aggressive medical treatment to which the doctors testified. Thus, the amount awarded did not "bear[] a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered." § 768.74(5)(d), Fla....
0 red0 yellow6 green0 procedural
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 601549
...that "[l]iability was never an issue with this jury which found both equitable and legal liability." Subsequently, the trial court granted the appellees' motion for additur and increased the damages award from $375,000 to $550,000. Florida Statutes section 768.74(1) authorizes trial courts to review the amount of awarded damages "to determine if such amount is excessive or inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact." Section 768.74(4) further requires that "[i]f 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." The First District commented in 1661 Corp....
0 red0 yellow6 green0 procedural
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 10842, 1997 WL 593906
...floor at the time of the incident in time to prevent Plaintiff's fall or remedy the condition. The parties were given ten days to file a written acceptance or rejection of the additur, with a rejection resulting in a new trial on damages pursuant to section 768.74, Florida Statutes....
0 red0 yellow5 green0 procedural
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 6479252, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 19645
...After entry of the order granting the motion for additur, the developers filed a motion for new trial on the issue of damages against the attorney. The developers argued that they objected to the amount of the additur and, therefore, they were entitled to a new trial on damages against the attorney pursuant to section 768.74(4), Florida Statutes (2011). Section 768.74(4) states: 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. § 768.74(4), Fla....
...ropriate as an additur. This conclusion of law was error in four respects. First, neither the developers’ motion for additur, nor the court’s order granting the additur, nor the record, indicates the existence of any of the criteria set forth in section 768.74(5), Florida Statutes (2011), which would have justified granting any additur. Section 768.74(5) states: 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 o...
...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 *246 it could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons. § 768.74(5), Fla....
...en no proof at trial concerning the correct measure of damages.”) (citation omitted). Because the court erred in finding that nominal damages were appropriate as an additur, no legal basis existed for the developers to seek a new trial pursuant to section 768.74(4) as the “party adversely affected” by the additur....
0 red0 yellow5 green0 procedural
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 637502
...Wackenhut v. Canty,
359 So.2d 430 (Fla. 1978) (trial judge improperly acted as seventh juror in ordering remittitur or new trial; province of jury ought not to be invaded by a judge merely because he raises a judicial eyebrow at its verdict); but see §
768.74, Fla....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1997 WL 740658
...nterior designer. The jury awarded her the following: Combined past medical $140,000. expenses and lost earnings. Past pain and suffering 15,000. Future pain and suffering 15,000. Future medical expenses and -0- future lost earning ability. Although section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1995), appears to require a trial court to find a verdict inadequate before granting an additur, the trial court did not find this verdict inadequate....
...It only asks that the verdicts be affirmed. We treat the order, for purposes of review, as if the court found the verdicts grossly inadequate. [1] In Poole v. Veterans Auto Sales and Leasing Co., Inc.,
668 So.2d 189, 191 (Fla.1996), the Florida Supreme Court concluded that section
768.74, Florida Statutes (1995), which authorizes remitturs and additurs, does not alter the "long-standing principles applicable to the granting of new trials on damages." And in Rowlands v....
0 red0 yellow4 green0 procedural
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2003 WL 22970864
...Manasse,
707 So.2d 1110 (Fla.1998); Cloud v. Fallis,
110 So.2d 669 (Fla.1959). She argues that the trial court had a superior vantage point to judge the validity of the verdict in the context of the claims asserted and evidence presented. She further points out that under section
768.74(6), Florida Statutes, the legislature has vested in the trial court the discretionary authority to review damage awards in light of excessiveness or inadequacy....
0 red0 yellow4 green0 procedural
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 9065, 1999 WL 454399
...The trial court heard counsels' arguments and ordered a remittitur to $50,000. Kaine rejected the remittitur and filed this appeal. Kaine contends on appeal that in setting aside the $325,000 verdict and granting the remittitur to $50,000, the trial court abused its discretion by not following the criteria set out in section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1997), and by not following clearly established Florida law on remittitur....
...e allowed. The verdict should not be disturbed unless it is so inordinately large as obviously to exceed the maximum limit of a reasonable range within which the jury may properly operate. Id. at 1184-5 (citations omitted). In conjunction with this, section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1997), lists the criteria to be followed by a trial court in determining if an award is excessive. Section 768.74(5) states, in pertinent part: (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 reason...
...ce and the other findings of fact.... I think the jury was obviously confused. The manifest weight of the evidence is against this. This is absolutelywhat's the word? A fluke. The trial court made no findings of fact to satisfy the requirements of section 768.74 that the damage award was excessive or so large that it indicated the jury was influenced unduly by passion, prejudice, or corruption. Further, the trial court's written order did not delineate the specific record evidence of the excessiveness, as required by section 768.74....
0 red0 yellow3 green0 procedural
CopyCited 2 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida
best interests of the citizens of this state. §
768.74, Fla. Stat. (2014) (emphasis added). None
0 red0 yellow7 green0 procedural
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 17713
...Analysis a) Remittitur of the Compensatory Damage Award “We review an order denying a motion for remittitur or a new trial under an abuse of discretion standard.” City of Hollywood v. Hogan,
986 So.2d 634, 647 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Pursuant to Florida’s remittitur and ad-ditur statute, section
768.74 of the Florida Statutes, the trial court has the responsibility to review the amount of an award and determine if it is excessive or inadequate “in light of the facts and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact.” §
768.74(1), Fla. Stat. (2014). “If the court finds that the amount awarded is excessive or inadequate, it shall order a remittitur or additur, as the case may be.” §
768.74(2), Fla....
...r 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. § 768.74(5), Fla....
0 red0 yellow5 green0 procedural
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1999 WL 641885
...We hold that the evidence presented supports Judge Franza's conclusion that the jury properly awarded punitive damages. We also hold that the record supports Judge Franza's conclusion that appellees successfully rebutted the presumption of excessiveness of the punitive damage award. See § 768.74(5)(a)-(e), Fla....
0 red0 yellow2 green0 procedural
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1999 WL 1037925
...The central issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in granting a new trial on both liability and damages once the additur was rejected. We conclude that the court did err in this regard, and reverse and remand for a new trial on damages only. Section 768.74(4), Florida Statutes addresses the procedure to be followed for remittitur and additur, and states that "[i]f the court finds that the amount awarded is excessive or inadequate, it shall order an additur or remittitur, as the case may be." § 768.74(2), Fla. Stat. (1997). The statute further provides that "[i]f 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." § 768.74(4), Fla....
...HAZOURI, J., concurring specially I concur in the result but write to express my disagreement with our court's decision in Broward County School Board v. Dombrosky,
579 So.2d 748 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), for its failure to follow the mandatory requirement of section
768.74(2), Florida Statutes (1997). As the majority points out, the pertinent part of section
768.74(2) provides: "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." §
768.74(2), Fla....
...4th DCA 1990), for the proposition that: "when a damage award is clearly inadequate and the issue of liability is hotly contested, such circumstances give rise to a suggestion that the jury may have compromised its verdict." However, in Watson there was no issue of an additur, and thus no need for the application of section
768.74. Prior to the enactment of section
768.74, the legislature enacted section
768.043(1), Florida Statutes (1977), [2] It applies to actions for personal injury or wrongful death arising out of the operation of a motor vehicle, but is otherwise virtually identical to section
768.74....
...The language in the statute is mandatory and requires "[i]f 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. " Id. at 1276. Therefore, just as the first district held that
768.043 is mandatory, I would hold that
768.74 is mandatory and if a trial court grants an additur or a remittitur and the adversely affected party rejects the additur or remittitur, that party is entitled to a new trial on damages only....
0 red0 yellow4 green0 procedural
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 14986, 2004 WL 2290630
...We find that the trial court abused its discretion in granting an additur of the future pain and suffering award, after he had already resubmitted the issue to the jury for further deliberation. A trial judge has broad discretion in ruling on a Motion for Additur. § 768.74(6), Fla....
...However, in determining whether the jury verdict is adequate, the trial court "cannot sit as a seventh juror." Republic Serv. of Fla., L.P. v. Poucher,
851 So.2d 866 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)(quoting Laskey v. Smith,
239 So.2d 13, 14 (Fla.1970)); Aurbach v. Gallina,
721 So.2d 756 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Section
768.74(1), Florida Statutes, authorizes trial courts to review damages awarded under a verdict "to determine if such amount is excessive or inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact." §
768.74(1) Fla. Stat. (2003). Section
768.74(5), Florida Statutes, requires the court to 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 f...
...r 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. § 768.74(5), Fla....
0 red0 yellow2 green0 procedural
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 3615113
...ollision. However, as the Morenos also contend on appeal, the jury's verdict for future medical expenses, $171,000, must be supported by sufficient evidence in the record before us. In conjunction with the well-established Florida law on remittitur, section
768.74, Florida Statutes (2001), [4] delineates certain criteria a trial court must follow in determining if an award is excessive and, therefore, contrary to the weight of the evidence. See Fravel,
727 So.2d at 1037; Kaine,
735 So.2d at 601. Section
768.74(5) states, in relevant part, as follows: (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 excee...
...Here, our review of the record reveals that there is insufficient evidence to support an award for Arnulfo Moreno's future medical expenses in the amount of $171,000. Moreover, the trial judge was correct in finding that the amount awarded does not bear a reasonable relationship to the damages proved at trial. See § 768.74(5)(e), Fla....
...medical experts and was not reasonably related to the damages actually proven. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order granting the defendants' motion for remittitur or new trial as to past and future medical expenses awarded by the jury. See § 768.74(4), Fla....
0 red0 yellow2 green0 procedural
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 718747
...Two statutes must be considered in determining whether the trial court properly exercised its discretionary authority to triple the jury's award. Section
768.043, enacted in 1977, provides for remittitur and additur in actions arising out of the operation of motor vehicles. Section
768.74, part of the Tort Reform Act of 1986, provides for remittitur and additur in any case where the trier of fact finds liability exists on the part of the defendant and a verdict is rendered awarding money damages to the plaintiff. This latter *266 statute tracks nearly all of the language of section
768.043. Section
768.74, however, appears to give the trial court more discretion in altering a jury verdict. Section
768.043 allows alteration of awards which the trial court finds to be "clearly excessive or inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances presented." Section
768.74 allows alteration where the court simply finds "that the amount awarded is excessive or inadequate." Both statutes list several criteria for consideration when evaluating whether an award is excessive or inadequate. These factors include: (a) whether the amount awarded is indicative of prejudice, passion or corruption on the part of the trier of fact; (b) whether it clearly appears (the new section
768.74 eliminates the word "clearly") that the trier of fact ignored the evidence in reaching the verdict or misconceived the merits of the case relating to the amount of damages recoverable; (c) whether the amount awarded is supported by the...
...this additur case. We find that the award in the instant case for pain and suffering was not "so inordinately [small] as obviously to [be below] the [minimum] of a reasonable range within which the jury may properly operate." Bould at 1184-85. While section 768.74 may give slightly greater discretion to the trial court to alter a jury verdict than that which existed previously, we find it was an abuse of discretion to alter the pain and suffering award even under section 768.74....
...HARRIS, C.J., concurs and concurs specially, with opinion. HARRIS, Chief Judge, concurring specially: I concur with the majority opinion [1] but with some reservation and with a suggestion that this matter be certified to the supreme court. The majority opinion is based on section 768.74(5)(e), Florida Statutes (1993), which requires that the jury's decision be upheld if it is "supported by the evidence and could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons." The focus of this standard of review is on the jury's action....
...in Baptist Memorial. It is not clear, at least to me, exactly what discretion a judge has in granting a new trial based solely on whether the manifest weight of the evidence supports the amount of the jury award. It appears under Rowlands and under section 768.74 that it is the court's responsibility, upon motion, to review the record to see if the amount of the award is supported by the evidence....
...fact finder even in a jury trial? The concept of permitting a trial judge, by statute, to override a jury verdict based on the judge's view of the evidence is especially troubling in light of Florida's strong (constitutional) policy on jury trials. Section 768.74, Florida Statutes, sets out criteria for the judge to use in deciding whether or not to grant a new trial in lieu of a remittitur or an additur....
...terfere with it regardless of the judge's independent opinion as to the amount of damages and even if a reasonable person might agree with the judge. However, because of the language in Baptist Memorial, I would certify the following question. IF SECTION
768.74 PERMITS A TRIAL JUDGE TO ORDER A NEW TRIAL UNLESS THE AFFECTED PARTY AGREES TO ACCEPT A REMITTITUR OR ADDITUR WHEN A REASONABLE PERSON COULD AGREE THAT THE RECORD SUPPORTS THE JURY DECISION (ASSUMING NO TRIAL ERROR OR JURY MISCONDUCT), DOES THIS SECTION VIOLATE ARTICLE I, SECTION 22, CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA? I recognize that in Smith v. Department of Ins.,
507 So.2d 1080 (Fla. 1987), the supreme court upheld the constitutionality of section
768.74 against a challenge that it violated the separation of powers provision of our constitution....
0 red0 yellow1 green0 procedural
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 14527
...motion for
remittitur constituted an abuse of discretion. We remand for the trial court to
determine a remittitur amount, or order a new trial on damages if the party
adversely affected by the remittitur does not agree to the remitted amount. See §
768.74(4), Fla....
0 red0 yellow3 green0 procedural
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
03/24/2020 Page: 12 of 31 (quoting Fla. Stat. §
768.74(1)). In imposing this requirement, the Florida
0 red0 yellow16 green0 procedural
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Argued: Sep 21, 2023
the damages award based on Fla. Stat. §
768.74, so we do not discuss it. Compare Kerrivan, 953
0 red0 yellow16 green0 procedural
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Argued: Jan 25, 2023
13 Fla. Stat. §
768.74(1). 10 To determine whether an award is exces-
0 red0 yellow10 green0 procedural
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2003 WL 21537344
all such awards be adequate and not excessive." §
768.74(3), Fla. Stat. (2001). The itemized verdict form
0 red0 yellow1 green0 procedural
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1562, 2011 WL 470117
consideration of a motion for additur is governed by section
768.74, Florida Statutes (2009), which requires the
0 red0 yellow1 green0 procedural
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 2447643
for additur and remittitur are governed by section
768.74, Florida Statutes. Although it appears that
0 red0 yellow1 green0 procedural
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 908187
circumstances that were presented to the jury. §
768.74(1), Fla. Stat. (2001). Once a trial court determines
0 red0 yellow1 green0 procedural
CopyCited 1 times | District Court of Appeal of Florida
... in order to provide an additional measure of soundness and logic to the judicial system." (citing §
768.74(6), Fla. Stat.)); Pruitt v. Perez-Gervert,
41 So. 3d 286, 289 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) ("Because the award here was greater than what was reasonably supported by the evidence, the trial court ...
CopyCited 1 times | District Court of Appeal of Florida
...
944 So. 2d 1115, 1117 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). In evaluating additur, the trial court must apply section
768.74, Florida Statutes (2024), which requires the court to determine whether a verdict is “clearly excessive or inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances.” Id. The earlier ...
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1996 WL 38842
shall enter an order of remittitur pursuant to section
768.74, Florida Statutes (Supp.1986), reducing the
0 red0 yellow2 green0 procedural
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 13807
carefully considering the criteria set forth in Section
768.74(5), finds the noneconomic damages were excessive
0 red0 yellow1 green0 procedural
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida
the motion for remittitur in accordance with section
768.74, Florida Statutes. The reconsideration must
0 red0 yellow1 green0 procedural
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida
In support, the circuit court’s order cited section
768.74(5)(d), Florida Statutes (2019), and Ortlieb
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida
remittitur does not agree to the remitted amount. See §
768.74(4), Fla. Stat. (2014). We also note that the final
CopyPublished | District Court, M.D. Florida
also argues an additur is appropriate under Section
768.74, Florida Statutes, which permits courts to
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida
scrutiny by the courts.” §
768.74(3), Fla. Stat (2021). To this end, section
768.74, Florida Statutes
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida
non-economic damages award was excessive. See §
768.74(3), Fla. Stat. (2015). The trial court denied
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
§'
768.043(1), Fla. Stat. * “Section
768.74 did not alter the ‘longstanding principles’
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida
circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact.” §
768.74(1), Fla. Stat. (2019). In determining whether
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida
plaintiff is excessive, it may order a remittitur. See §
768.74(2), Fla. Stat. (2017). In determining whether
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida
plaintiff is excessive, it may order a remittitur. See §
768.74(2), Fla. Stat. (2017). In determining whether
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida
(2021). The second statute, section
768.74, remains the same. See §
768.74, Fla. Stat. (2021).
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida
evidence. In doing so, the trial court noted that section
768.74 requires a trial court to determine whether
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida
adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons,” §
768.74(5)(d),(e), Fla. Stat. (2021), we find no error
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
So. 3d 1059, 1072 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). Section
768.74, Florida Statutes (2023), provides that a trial
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida
consideration of a motion for additur is governed by section
768.74, Florida Statutes (2020), which requires the
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida
unconstitutional, remittitur was necessary under section
768.74(5)(e), Florida Statutes (2012), because Mrs
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida
defines a “proper motion” as referenced in section
768.74, Florida Statutes. A motion that does not provide
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida
failed to consider the factors set forth in section
768.74(5) of the Florida Statutes, as it was required
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida
defines a “proper motion” as referenced in section
768.74, Florida Statutes. A motion that does not provide
