Laserfiche WebLink
The dropping of Mr. Tucker, therefore, prejudiced Petitioner in the presentation of its <br /> case and, in Petitioner's view, made it more likely for the jury to render a verdict in <br /> Respondent's favor. For this reason as well, a new trial should be granted. <br /> IV. Alternatively, because the jury award was based upon erroneously admitted <br /> evidence, remittitur is appropriate. <br /> Upon a request for remittitur, a trial court can reduce the amount of damages awarded in <br /> a jury verdict "to the highest amount which the jury could properly have awarded." Lassitter v. <br /> Int'l Union of Operating Engineers, 349 So. 2d 622, 627 (Fla. 1976). Here, remittitur of the jury <br /> verdict is appropriate because the $855,000 verdict was based solely upon the inadmissible, <br /> speculative evidence offered by Respondent. In fact, the only admissible evidence regarding the <br /> amount of damages was the testimony of Petitioner's experts, who opined that Parcel A was <br /> worth $1,000 and that Respondent was entitled to no severance damages at all. As such, the <br /> court should reduce the verdict to the amount of$1,000 if Respondent prefers such relief in lieu <br /> of a new trial. See Dura Corp. v. Wallace, 297 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (acknowledging <br /> that party adversely affected by remittitur may opt for new trial instead). <br /> WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, this Court should grant Petitioner a new <br /> trial, or grant Petitioner's request for remittitur, and grant such further relief as it deems just and <br /> proper. <br /> Respectfully submitted <br /> SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP <br /> Attorneys for Petitioner <br /> 200 East Broward Boulevard, 2100 <br /> Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 <br /> Telephone: (954) 524-5505 <br /> Facsimile: (954) 888-3063 <br /> By: Is/Sidney C. Calloway <br /> Sidney C. Calloway <br /> 18 <br />