Court Opinion

ID: 9929335
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-02 15:05:11.716534+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:07:01.994258
License: Public Domain

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                STATE OF FLORIDA
                  _____________________________

                       Case No. 5D23-1515
                   LT Case No. 2020-CA-000883
                  _____________________________

CAMERON ANDREW GARROW and
KENNETH JOSEPH GARROW,

    Appellants,

    v.

ANN MARIE ANTONIETTA and
JAMES ANTONIETTA,

    Appellees.
                  _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County.
Dawn P. Fields, Judge.

Ezequiel Lugo, of Banker Lopez Gassler, P.A., Tampa, for
Appellants.

Jeremy K. Markman, of King & Markman, P.A., Orlando, for
Appellees.

                        February 2, 2024

LAMBERT, J.

    Cameron Garrow and Andrew Garrow, who were the
defendants below in the negligence action filed against them by
Appellees arising out of a motor vehicle accident, have timely
appealed the trial court’s order granting a new trial following the
Garrows’ rejection of an additur ordered by the court under section
768.043, Florida Statutes (2022). The new trial was limited solely
to the claims of Appellee, Ann Marie Antonietta, for past and
future non-economic damages and the claim of Appellee, James
Antonietta, for future loss of consortium damages. We reverse and
remand for reinstatement of the jury’s verdict and entry of
judgment consistent with the verdict.

     We begin with the recognition that “[d]amages for pain and
suffering are difficult to calculate, have no set standard of
measurement, and for this reason are uniquely reserved to a jury
for their decision.” Pogue v. Garib, 254 So. 3d 503, 507 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2018) (quoting Ortega v. Belony, 185 So. 3d 538, 539–40 (Fla.
3d DCA 2015)). A trial court does, however, have the limited
authority to grant an additur in the type of action filed below, but
only when, under the facts and circumstances presented to the
trier of fact, the money damages awarded are clearly inadequate.
See § 768.043(1), Fla. Stat. (2022).

     The granting of an additur is reviewed for an abuse of
discretion. Moore v. Perry, 944 So. 2d 1115, 1117 (Fla. 5th DCA
2006) (citing Republic Servs. of Fla., L.P. v. Poucher, 851 So. 2d
866 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)); Ferrer v. Serna, 179 So. 3d 523, 524 (Fla.
4th DCA 2015) (citing Aurbach v. Gallina, 721 So. 2d 756, 758 (Fla.
4th DCA 1998)). Discretion is considered to have been abused
when the trial evidence is in conflict and the jury could have
reached its verdict in a manner consistent with the evidence.
Moore, 944 So. 2d at 1118; Ferrer, 179 So. 3d at 525 (quoting
Ortlieb v. Butts, 849 So. 2d 1165, 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003));
Ortlieb, 849 So. 2d at 1167 (“[W]here the evidence is conflicting
and the jury could have reached its verdict in a manner consistent
with the evidence, it is error for the trial court to veto the jury
verdict by granting a motion for additur.” (citing Airstar, Inc. v.
Gubbins, 668 So. 2d 311, 313 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996))).

    Without the need for detailed elaboration of the conflicting
evidence regarding these intangible damages at issue, the
evidence presented to the jury was sufficiently conflicting such
that its verdict awarding Ann Marie Antonietta $20,000 for past
non-economic damages and $100,000 for future non-economic
damages was entirely consistent with the evidence the jury

                                 2
received and evaluated at trial. Moreover, the jury’s verdict as to
James Antonietta’s loss of future consortium damages was fully
consistent with his express trial testimony. Accordingly, we agree
with the Garrows that the trial court abused its discretion in
granting the additur and in ordering the previously described new
trial. 1

     Appellees have also moved for an award of appellate
attorney’s fees. The motion was filed after the time for service of
the reply brief, and after Appellants had in fact filed their reply
brief; and the motion is therefore denied as untimely. See Fla. R.
App. P. 9.400(b)(1); Lobel v. Southgate Condo. Ass’n, 436 So. 2d
170, 171 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).

      REVERSED and REMANDED with directions to the trial court to
reinstate the jury verdict and enter a final judgment consistent
with the verdict; DENY Appellees’ motion for appellate attorney’s
fees.

EDWARDS, C.J., and JAY, J., concur.

                 _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________

    1 We also conclude that the other arguments raised by the

Garrows in their initial brief either lack merit or have been
rendered moot by our decision.

                                3