Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; February 13, 1990; Florida; State Appellate Court
Elzie Hawkins appeals a final judgment in favor of Joe and Janie Williams, following a jury verdict that found he did not sustain a permanent injury or disfigurement from an automobile/pedestrian accident. Hawkins argues that the trial court erred by not directing a verdict on the issue of permanent injury under section 627.737(2), Florida Statutes (1987), and by denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, asserting the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court agrees and reverses the decision.
Hawkins, a paraplegic since 1979, had a history of decubitus ulcers and in 1982 suffered a tibia fracture that led to an infection, for which Dr. Brandon recommended a mid-thigh amputation due to Hawkins’ susceptibility to infections but which Hawkins declined. In June 1985, Hawkins was struck by the defendants’ vehicle while in a wheelchair, sustaining a left femur fracture. Despite the jury finding the defendants negligent with no comparative negligence attributed to Hawkins, the subsequent medical testimony revealed a significant flare-up of chronic osteomyelitis following the fracture. Dr. Sandall testified that the infection necessitated a hip disarticulation, which he deemed lifesaving and a severe permanent injury.
The defense presented conflicting testimony from Dr. Jones, who indicated that the hip disarticulation would eventually occur due to Hawkins' chronic ulcers and infections, regardless of the accident, but also acknowledged that the infection flare-up resulting from the fracture led to the amputation. The appellees conceded that an amputation is a significant and permanent disfigurement per the statute but argued that their negligence was not the proximate cause of the leg removal, referencing Dr. Jones' testimony.
Appellant argues that the evidence clearly shows the amputation was legally caused by the negligence of the appellees, which the court agrees with. The jury received standard instructions on causation and the aggravation of preexisting conditions. It was established that Hawkins’ femur fracture directly resulted from the accident, leading to a severe flare-up of his chronic infection, which became life-threatening and necessitated the amputation of his leg. This amputation was medically necessary, distinguishing it from a prior recommendation for amputation made by Dr. Brandon to prevent future issues. Dr. Jones' testimony supported that the disarticulation stemmed from the aggravation of Hawkins' existing health problems. Relying on precedent from C.F. Hamblen, Inc. v. Owens, the court noted that a defendant is liable for damages resulting from aggravation of a preexisting condition due to their negligence. The defendant did not present any evidence of alternative causes for the infection flare-up, thus satisfying the legal proximate cause requirement. The jury's contrary finding was deemed erroneous, leading to the decision to reverse and remand for a new trial on damages. The court also noted that a concurring cause instruction could have further benefited the jury's understanding.
