Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 768.74 (2025)
Remittitur and additur.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes: current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 142
cases (21 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Joan Schoeff, as Pers. Rep. of the Est. of James Edward Schoeff, 178 So. 3d 487 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Joan Schoeff, as Pers. Rep. of the Est. of James Edward Schoeff, 178 So. 3d 487 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). “” § 768.74(1), Fla. Stat. (2012). “If the court finds that the amount awarded is excessive or inadequate, it shall order a remittitur or additur, as the case may be.”
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Townsend, 90 So. 3d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). “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.”
ITT Hartford Ins. Co. of the SE v. Owens, 816 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 2002). “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.”
G4s Secure Solutions USA, Inc., Etc. v. Golzar, 208 So. 3d 204 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). “3 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.”
Gwendolyn E. Odom, etc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 254 So. 3d 268 (Fla. 2018). “§ 768.74(1). The remittitur statute explains that although "the reasonable actions of a jury are a fundamental precept of American jurisprudence and .”
Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Alexander, 123 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). “” 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…”
St. John v. Coisman, 799 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). “The standard of review of remittitur orders is abuse of discretion.”
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Grossman, 211 So. 3d 221 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). “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…”
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Webb, 93 So. 3d 331 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). “” § 768.74(1), Fla. Stat. (2010). In determining whether an award is excessive, a trial court is required 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…”
Beauvais v. Edell, 760 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). “Section 768.74, Florida Statutes, requires the trial court to review an award of money damages for excessiveness or inadequacy.”
FLNC, Inc. v. Ramos, 220 So. 3d 1220 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). “The Estate argues that because the jury found liability, this case fits squarely within section 768.74, even though the trial court determined that the money damages awarded by the jury were inadequate.”
Dyes v. Spick, 606 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). “77, Florida Statutes (1989), and the remittitur and additur statute, section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1989). This court has previously held that the itemized verdict statute, requiring a jury to specifically calculate each line item of damages awarded to a personal injury…”
768.74(1): 32 cases
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Joan Schoeff, as Pers. Rep. of the Est. of James Edward Schoeff, 178 So. 3d 487 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). “” § 768.74(1), Fla. Stat. (2012). “If the court finds that the amount awarded is excessive or inadequate, it shall order a remittitur or additur, as the case may be.”
G4s Secure Solutions USA, Inc., Etc. v. Golzar, 208 So. 3d 204 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). “3 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.”
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Grossman, 211 So. 3d 221 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). “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…”
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Webb, 93 So. 3d 331 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). “” § 768.74(1), Fla. Stat. (2010). In determining whether an award is excessive, a trial court is required 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…”
FLNC, Inc. v. Ramos, 220 So. 3d 1220 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). “The Estate argues that because the jury found liability, this case fits squarely within section 768.74, even though the trial court determined that the money damages awarded by the jury were inadequate.”
768.74(2): 18 cases
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Joan Schoeff, as Pers. Rep. of the Est. of James Edward Schoeff, 178 So. 3d 487 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). “” § 768.74(1), Fla. Stat. (2012). “If the court finds that the amount awarded is excessive or inadequate, it shall order a remittitur or additur, as the case may be.”
Gwendolyn E. Odom, etc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 254 So. 3d 268 (Fla. 2018). “§ 768.74(1). The remittitur statute explains that although "the reasonable actions of a jury are a fundamental precept of American jurisprudence and .”
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Grossman, 211 So. 3d 221 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). “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…”
Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Alexander, 123 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). “” 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…”
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Odom, 210 So. 3d 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).
768.74(3): 15 cases
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Townsend, 90 So. 3d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). “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.”
Dyes v. Spick, 606 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). “77, Florida Statutes (1989), and the remittitur and additur statute, section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1989). This court has previously held that the itemized verdict statute, requiring a jury to specifically calculate each line item of damages awarded to a personal injury…”
St. John v. Coisman, 799 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). “The standard of review of remittitur orders is abuse of discretion.”
Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Cohen, 102 So. 3d 11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).
City of Hollywood v. Hogan, 986 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).
768.74(4): 34 cases
ITT Hartford Ins. Co. of the SE v. Owens, 816 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 2002). “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.”
Bluth v. Blake, 128 So. 3d 242 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).
Westminster Cmty. Care Servs., Inc. v. Mikesell, 12 So. 3d 838 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009).
Normius v. Eckerd Corp., 813 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
Aills v. Boemi, 41 So. 3d 1022 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).
768.74(5): 47 cases
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Joan Schoeff, as Pers. Rep. of the Est. of James Edward Schoeff, 178 So. 3d 487 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). “” § 768.74(1), Fla. Stat. (2012). “If the court finds that the amount awarded is excessive or inadequate, it shall order a remittitur or additur, as the case may be.”
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Townsend, 90 So. 3d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). “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.”
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Grossman, 211 So. 3d 221 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). “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…”
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Webb, 93 So. 3d 331 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). “” § 768.74(1), Fla. Stat. (2010). In determining whether an award is excessive, a trial court is required 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…”
Bluth v. Blake, 128 So. 3d 242 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).
768.74(5)(a): 6 cases
Gwendolyn E. Odom, etc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 254 So. 3d 268 (Fla. 2018). “§ 768.74(1). The remittitur statute explains that although "the reasonable actions of a jury are a fundamental precept of American jurisprudence and .”
Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Alexander, 123 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). “” 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…”
CSX Transp., Inc. v. Palank, 743 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Naugle, 126 So. 3d 1155 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).
Joan Schoeff, etc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (Fla. 2017).
768.74(5)(b): 3 cases
Arena Parking, Inc. v. Lon Worth Crow Ins. Agency, 768 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).
Hertz Corp. v. David Klein Mfg., Inc., 636 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).
Joan Schoeff, etc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (Fla. 2017).
768.74(5)(c): 4 cases
Crane Co. v. DeLisle, 206 So. 3d 94 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).
Arena Parking, Inc. v. Lon Worth Crow Ins. Agency, 768 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).
Current Builders v. First Sealord Sur., 984 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).
Joan Schoeff, etc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (Fla. 2017).
768.74(5)(d): 12 cases
Liggett Grp., Inc. v. Engle, 853 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Webb, 93 So. 3d 331 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). “” § 768.74(1), Fla. Stat. (2010). In determining whether an award is excessive, a trial court is required 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…”
Garrett v. Miami Transfer Co., Inc., 964 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).
Mason v. Dist. Bd. of Broward Coll., 644 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
Current Builders v. First Sealord Sur., 984 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).
768.74(5)(e): 8 cases
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Joan Schoeff, as Pers. Rep. of the Est. of James Edward Schoeff, 178 So. 3d 487 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). “” § 768.74(1), Fla. Stat. (2012). “If the court finds that the amount awarded is excessive or inadequate, it shall order a remittitur or additur, as the case may be.”
Gwendolyn E. Odom, etc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 254 So. 3d 268 (Fla. 2018). “§ 768.74(1). The remittitur statute explains that although "the reasonable actions of a jury are a fundamental precept of American jurisprudence and .”
Fravel v. Haughey, 727 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).
Mason v. Dist. Bd. of Broward Coll., 644 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
Moreno v. Diaz, 943 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).
768.74(6): 14 cases
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Townsend, 90 So. 3d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). “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.”
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Webb, 93 So. 3d 331 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). “” § 768.74(1), Fla. Stat. (2010). In determining whether an award is excessive, a trial court is required 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…”
Beauvais v. Edell, 760 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). “Section 768.74, Florida Statutes, requires the trial court to review an award of money damages for excessiveness or inadequacy.”
McCarthy Bros. Co. v. Tilbury Const., Inc., 849 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).
Gwendolyn E. Odom, etc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 254 So. 3d 268 (Fla. 2018). “§ 768.74(1). The remittitur statute explains that although "the reasonable actions of a jury are a fundamental precept of American jurisprudence and .”
768.74(a): 1 case
Flying Fish Bikes, Inc. v. Giant Bicycle, Inc., 181 F. Supp. 3d 957 (M.D. Fla. 2016).
768.74(b): 1 case
Flying Fish Bikes, Inc. v. Giant Bicycle, Inc., 181 F. Supp. 3d 957 (M.D. Fla. 2016).
768.74(c): 1 case
Flying Fish Bikes, Inc. v. Giant Bicycle, Inc., 181 F. Supp. 3d 957 (M.D. Fla. 2016).
768.74(e): 1 case
Flying Fish Bikes, Inc. v. Giant Bicycle, Inc., 181 F. Supp. 3d 957 (M.D. Fla. 2016).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.