only. The trial court denied Appellant’s motion for reconsideration, but entered an order for a new trial on causation and damages'but not on liability. Both sides appeal the order. The trial court found that it was “inconceivable ... that a jury of reasonable persons could find negligence and causation ... but not award at least some damages for the intangible elements.” Our review of the record’ and briefs leads us to conclude that “it is more than merely conceivable that the jury ‘interwove the issues of liability and damages in the jury form in an inconsistent way, suggestive of a compromise on liability, possible confusion on the law of damages, or both.’ ” Calloway v. Dania Jai Alai Palace, 1387, 1389 (Fla 4th DCA 1997), rev’d on other grounds, 709 So.2d 1381 (Fla. 1998) (<HOLDING>). Because the Estate rejected the additur of
holding verdict inadequate when stipulated medical expenses were 319499 and verdict was in same amount notwithstanding evidence of additional uncontested damages holding that verdict of liability that awarded past medical expenses only and nothing for pain and suffering clearly shows it was result of compromised verdict where negligence was seriously disputed holding there is no dutyimposed on trial judge to question jurys verdict of liability but no damages unless requested to by a party holding that jurys damagesrelated questions and verdict of liability with clearly inadequate damages of only medical expenses but no noneconomic damages in case where liability was hotly contested strongly suggested compromised verdict holding that verdict of 1000 was inadequate where special damages for medical expenses were stipulated in amount of 164118