Court Opinion

ID: 9859367
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 21:18:46.60396+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:41:57.213144
License: Public Domain

Fairchild, J.
(concurring). The amount awarded by the jury may have been excessive in this instance. I do not, however, agree with the restriction now imposed by the court upon argument of counsel. The arguments favoring the use of a per diem type of argument quoted in the majority opinion from Ratner v. Arrington (Fla. 1959), 111 So. (2d) 82, 88, are more convincing to me than are those in opposition.
A jury must proceed from evidentiary facts to ultimate facts by reasoning and the drawing of inferences. In awarding just compensation for pain and suffering, the jury must necessarily consider the severity of the pain and its duration. A per diem type of argument is a suggestion of a course of reasoning from the evidence to the award. Within limitations which the trial court may impose by appropriate instructions and otherwise to prevent counsel’s suggestion from being given weight as evidence, this type of argument seems to me to be legitimate.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Brown joins in this opinion.