Ezequiel Lugo obtained a favorable decision in an appeal from an order granting a new trial after the defendants rejected an additur.
A jury returned a verdict awarding the main plaintiff over $100,000 in economic damages and approximately $150,000 in non-economic damages. The jury also awarded the main plaintiff’s husband $20,000 for past damages and zero for future damages. The trial court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for additur and increased the main plaintiff’s non-economic damages to $276,500 and the husband’s future damages to $176,500.
On appeal, Ezequiel argued that additur was improper because the verdict was consistent with the evidence. Ezequiel noted that: (1) the jury heard disputed evidence of causation, permanency, and the main plaintiff’s pain; and (2) the husband testified he had separated from his wife and did not want money.
The appellate court agreed with Ezequiel and explained that a trial court’s authority to grant additur is limited to situations where the damages awarded are clearly inadequate. The appellate court stated the jury’s award for the wife was consistent with the conflicting evidence before the jury and the award for the husband “was fully consistent with his express trial testimony.” The appellate court also denied the plaintiff’s motion for appellate attorneys’ fees.
The case is Garrow v. Antonietta, 379 So. 3d 559 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024).
Original source can be found here.