Marilyn Roseanne Hunt v. James Lightfoot
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledOctober 28, 2020
Docket1D19-3683
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D19-3683
_____________________________
MARILYN ROSEANNE HUNT,
Appellant,
v.
JAMES LIGHTFOOT,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.
Katie L. Dearing, Judge.
October 28, 2020
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See § 768.74(5), Fla. Stat. (2019) (enumerating
factors for courts to consider when determining whether an award
is excessive or inadequate); Lassitter v. Int’l Union of Operating
Eng’rs, 349 So. 2d 622, 627 (Fla. 1977) (“Under the general rule a
verdict should not be disturbed on the ground of excessiveness
unless it is manifestly so excessive as to shock the judicial
conscience, or unless it is so excessive as to be indicative of
prejudice, passion or corruption on the part of the jury, . . . .”
(quoting Odoms v. Travelers Ins. Co., 339 So. 2d 196, 198
(Fla. 1976))); see also Odom v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 254
So. 3d 268, 277 (Fla. 2018) (“Because assessing the amount of
damages is within the province of the jury, this Court has made
clear that when reviewing a motion for remittitur, a court ‘should
never declare a verdict excessive merely because it is above the
amount which the court itself considers the jury should have
allowed.’” (quoting Bould v. Touchette, 349 So. 2d 1181, 1184
(Fla. 1977))).
RAY, C.J., and BILBREY and NORDBY, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________
Michael B. Wedner, Dennis P. Dore, Samantha D. Dunlap-Smart,
Jacksonville; and Warren B. Kwavnick, Fort Lauderdale, for
Appellant.
Howard C. Coker, Rebecca B. Creed, Joseph V. Camerlengo,
Jacksonville, for Appellee.
2