Title: City of Miami v. Smith

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

165 So. 2d 748 (1964)
CITY OF MIAMI, Florida, a municipal corporation, and Board of County Commissioners of Dade County, Florida, Petitioners,
v.
Marshall SMITH, Respondent.
No. 32877.

Supreme Court of Florida.
June 24, 1964.
Rehearing Denied July 22, 1964.
*749 Robert D. Zahner, City Atty., and John S. Lloyd, Asst. City Atty., for petitioners.
Fuller & Brumer, and Kenneth L. Ryskamp, Miami, for respondent.
CALDWELL, Justice.
Petitioner for writ of certiorari seeks to have this Court review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, in the case of Smith v. City of Miami et al.[1]
Respondent Smith, plaintiff below brought an action for injuries sustained when he fell on an allegedly defective portion of sidewalk. The trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiff for $441.00, the exact amount the medical expenses claimed. Plaintiff's motion for new trial, on the ground that no allowance was made for pain and suffering and loss of earnings, was denied.
The District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial on the issue of damages holding that the verdict demonstrated a "complete disregard of the trial judge's instruction on the law" and that the trial judge had abused his wide discretion in denying motion for new trial.
The case cited for conflict is Freeman v. Bandlow[2] wherein on similar facts the District Court of Appeal, Second District, reached a contrary result. The District Court in the instant case stated that it would not attempt to distinguish the Freeman case and expressly declined to follow it.
In Shaw v. Puleo[3] we held:
When measured by the language just quoted the decision under review must be quashed. The District Court concluded it was not reasonable to assume that a verdict for the exact amount of the medical bills "included a consideration of the evidence of pain and suffering." We disagree and express it as our view that, absent a showing of vitiating circumstance such as were enumerated in the Radiant Oil case, supra, we must assume that the jury considered all elements of damage. In the instant case the jurors may well have concluded that although there was in fact no compensable pain and suffering, the petitioner, nevertheless, had incurred medical expense and was to that extent entitled to recover.
In Freeman v. Bandlow,[4] the jury awarded the exact amount of a doctor's bill to plaintiff in a personal injury action and defendant appealed asserting inadequate damages. The District Court, Second District, found that, although contrary inferences of fact could have been drawn, the Court could not say with requisite assurance that the jury clearly labored under misconception of the law or evidence or failed to consider the extent of plaintiff's actual injuries and the elements of damage involved.
The record here fails to demonstrate abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in denying the motion for new trial. The decision of the District Court of Appeal is quashed and the cause is remanded for disposition consistent herewith.
It is so ordered.
DREW, C.J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, THORNAL, O'CONNELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
[1]  153 So. 2d 62 (Fla.App. 3rd 1963).
[2]  143 So. 2d 547 (Fla.App. 2nd 1962).
[3]  159 So. 2d 641, 644 (Fla. 1964).
[4]  143 So. 2d 547 (Fla.App.2nd 1962).