COURT AFFIRMS TRIAL COURT’S ADDITUR AND DIRECTED VERDICT ENTERED FOR PLAINTIFF

USAA CAS. INS. Co. v Deehl, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D1977 (Fla. 3rd DCA Oct. 30, 2024):

A couple was riding bicycles near the entrance of a state park. A phantom vehicle, obstructed by a large sign to the park, exited the park without stopping for the flashing red traffic light. The plaintiff’s girlfriend, who was ahead of him, swerved into his path to avoid the phantom vehicle. The man attempted to stop, but his front tire collided with her rear tire causing him to fall and sustain a serious and permanent ankle injury necessitating extensive medical attention.

At trial, the parties stipulated that the incident was governed by a flashing red and yellow traffic light and that the plaintiff was riding his bike properly in a marked bicycle lane. His girlfriend as the lead cyclist was 5 to 10 feet ahead, and they had the legal right of way. The evidence showed that as they approached the intersection, the phantom vehicle suddenly came into view and exited without deferring to the flashing light or to the bicyclists.

The plaintiff introduced a bicycle safety and operation expert who testified that the plaintiff was riding his bicycle appropriately, and that an emergency situation caused the crash. The UM carrier did not present any evidence to contradict that testimony, simply arguing that, as the rear bicyclist, the plaintiff should have been able to stop in time to avoid the collision.

The plaintiff’s medical treatment was extensive, and after six years of physical therapy and three surgeries, the plaintiff developed a significant limp. The evidence showed that he continues to experience pain and inflammation and suffers from post-traumatic arthritis. His entire demeanor and outlook on life has changed.

The UM carrier did not introduce any evidence to contradict the medical evidence presented by the plaintiff. During closing, the plaintiff suggested a non-economic damage award in the range of 2 to 4 million dollars.

The jury awarded damages totaling $500,000 ($250,000 for future economic damages, $125,000 for past non-economic damages and $125,000 for future non-economic damages. It apportioned 30% of the fault to the plaintiff and 70% to the unknown driver.

Post-trial, the plaintiff renewed his motion for directed verdict as to his comparative fault, which the trial court granted. He also moved for additur on the non-economic damage award, which the trial court also granted. The UM carrier objected to the additur, and the trial court ordered a new trial on non-economic damages only.

The Third District affirmed both trial court rulings. It noted that the trial court issued a well-reasoned order issued after consideration of the facts and circumstances, concluding that the low verdict amounts awarded shocked the conscience of the court and were clearly inadequate, because there was no conflicting or contradictory evidence. Because reasonable people could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court as expressed in its 11-page order the court affirmed.

As to the plaintiff’s comparative fault, the trial court properly granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The uncontroverted evidence and expert testimony established that the plaintiff was not at fault and had conducted himself according to the law.

Finally, while the UM carrier had sought a motion for summary judgment on the rear-end presumption against the plaintiff and cross-appealed on its denial, the court also affirmed the denial, refusing to find the plaintiff responsible for running into the rear of his girlfriend’s bike under the circumstances.