This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: Y: PER CURIAM
OPINION: [*330] PER CURIAM.
The defendants, Louis Nuta and Betty Nuta d/b/a Nuta's Boat Yard, appeal from a final
judgment entered in favor of the plaintiffs, Sidney J. Genders and Lodie Genders, and
from an order denying the defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict
or for a new trial. We affirm, in part, and reverse and remand, in part.
While at the defendants' boat yard, Sidney Genders was struck in the head by Daniel
Virgil with an iron bar. As a result, Sidney Genders' skull was fractured. The plaintiffs
filed an action against the defendants alleging negligence and respondeat superior
liability for Virgil's [**2] misconduct in assaulting and battering Sidney Genders. 20 The case proceeded to trial. Sidney Genders testified that Virgil, a security guard at the
boat yard, had threatened him two months earlier. Norbert Charles testified he was a
customer of Nuta's Boat Yard and hauled his boat there in the spring of 1989. Mr. Nuta
told him that if he came on the premises after hours, he had to go through his security
guard, Virgil. Sergeant Israel Gonzalez of the City of Miami Police Department testified
that on January 25, 1989, he was called to Nuta's Boat Yard to investigate an assault
involving Daniel Virgil. While investigating the assault, Mr. Nuta came to the scene and
identified Daniel Virgil as a security guard for Nuta's Boat Yard. Louis Nuta denied all
responsibility for Virgil. Nuta's bookkeeper denied that Virgil was ever employed at the
boat yard as a security guard. At the close of all the evidence, the plaintiffs moved to
amend their complaint to conform to the evidence concerning the negligent retention of
Daniel Virgil. Over the defendants' objections, the trial court granted the plaintiffs'
motion to amend. The jury was instructed on all legally recoverable elements of damage
[**3] and told to "consider the reasonable value or expense of medical treatment
necessarily or reasonably obtained by Mr. Genders in the past or to be obtained in the
future. You may also consider any loss of ability to earn money in the future."
The jury ret...
View Full Document
- Spring '08