This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: en resolved in Mrs. Russell's favor for the purposes of determining Doral's entitlement
to judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Accordingly, the trial court erred in granting
judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the retaliatory discharge counts.
We also conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial on the
retaliatory discharge counts because, like the sexual harassment count, the trial court
provided no reasons for such a conclusion other than referring to the points it made in its
flawed analyses on the judgment notwithstanding the verdict issues.
III. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM CLAIM
 On Mr. Russell's loss of consortium claim, we hold that Doral waived any
inconsistency in the verdict because no objection was made to the defective verdict
before the jury was discharged. See *381 Republic Servs. of Fla., L.P. v. Poucher, 851
So.2d 866, 870 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); J.T.A. Factors, Inc. v. Philcon Servs., Inc., 820
So.2d 367, 371 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) ("contention that a jury verdict is inconsistent must
be raised at the time the verdict is read and before the jury is released in order to allow an
opportunity to cure"). Thus, this award must be reinstated.
 Finally, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in granting a remittitur
to Doral. See Brown v. Estate of Stuckey, 749 So.2d 490, 498 (Fla.1999). Other than
stating that "the damages awarded by the jury were clearly excessive," the trial court
provided no justification whatsoever for granting the remittitur or for reducing the award
to $75,000. By granting a remittitur without explanation, the trial court has left us to
"grasp at straws" in reviewing this portion of the Final Judgment. Wackenhut Corp. v.
Canty, 359 So.2d 430, 435 (Fla.1978).
Based upon the foregoing analysis of the Final Judgment, this case is remanded to the
trial court with directions to reinstate the jury verdict in its entirety. Moreover, we direct
the trial court to entertain the merits of the Plaintiffs' claim for attorney's fees, which was
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 09/30/2012 for the course ENC 102 taught by Professor Deria during the Spring '08 term at FIU.
- Spring '08