final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lower
Tribunal No. 12-8626 Monica Gordo, Judge.
J. Morburger, for appellant.
& Rodriguez, P.A., and Javier J. Rodriguez, for
EMAS, FERNANDEZ and LUCK, JJ.
Francis-Harbin, plaintiff below, appeals 1) the trial
court's final judgment following a jury trial on her
negligence claim; and 2) the trial court's post judgment
order denying her motion for new trial or for additur. We
affirm, because the jury's verdict is not legally
inconsistent, and Francis-Harbin has failed to provide this
court with a sufficient record upon which this court can
properly review her claim that the verdict is inadequate or
contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.
was shopping at a Walmart store when a scissor lift truck
struck her left foot, causing injury. Francis-Harbin filed
suit against Walmart, AGM Tech, Inc., Sensormatic
Electronics, LLC, and ADT Security Services, Inc., alleging
that an employee of Walmart, or alternatively, an employee of
AGM Tech (as an authorized agent of Sensormatic
Electronics/ADT Security) (collectively, Sensormatic),
negligently operated the machine causing her injury.
Defendants denied liability and asserted that Francis-Harbin
case proceeded to jury trial, resulting in a verdict that
found Walmart 65% at fault, Francis-Harbin 20% at fault, and
Sensormatic/ADT and AGM Tech 15% at fault. The jury awarded
Francis-Harbin $14, 000 in past medical expenses and $96, 000
for lost earnings, an amount totaling $110, 000. The jury
awarded Francis-Harbin no damages for past pain and
suffering, future pain and suffering, future medical expenses
and future lost earnings. When the verdict was announced, and
before the jury was discharged, Francis-Harbin objected to
the verdict as legally inconsistent. The trial court denied
the request that the jury be reinstructed and directed to
thereafter filed a motion for new trial or in the
alternative, for additur, asserting that the verdict awarding
no damages for past or future pain and suffering was legally
inconsistent with the award of $14, 000 for past medical
expenses. Francis-Harbin further contended she was entitled
to a new trial or to an additur because the jury's award
of no damages for past pain and suffering was inadequate in
light of the evidence.
response, Sensormatic argued, inter alia, that
defendants disputed at trial (1) whether an accident ever
happened; (2) whether Francis-Harbin was injured as a result
of the alleged accident or event; and (3) whether
Francis-Harbin's physical and mental complaints were a
result of the alleged accident or instead the result of
pre-existing conditions or post-accident events (e.g.,
diabetes, morbid obesity, a subsequent car accident).
trial court denied Francis-Harbin's motion for new trial
or additur and entered final judgment awarding ...