support of non-economic damages. Defendants submitted no evidence related to damages. It was the jury’s job to find the total damages and the percentage of defendant’s contribution to the loss. It was for the court to then apply that percentage to the total damages. Plainly, the jury’s finding of zero dollars in damages resulting from Knowlton’s death is drastically deficient. See Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Merker, 907 So.2d 1213, 1215 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (noting that “where the evidence is undisputed or substantially undisputed that a plaintiff has experienced and will experience pain and suffering as a result of an accident, a zero award for pain and suffering is inadequate as a matter of law”); see also Westminster Cmty. Care Servs., Inc. v. Mikesell, 12 So.3d 838, 842 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (<HOLDING>); Snoozy v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 695 So.2d 767, 768
holding that the record supported the district courts award of damages 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 nominal damages award was appropriate where the evidence supporting the damages was speculative holding that jury not required to award noneconomic damages merely because it has awarded economic damages holding the damages award of zero dollars was clearly inadequate in light of the substantial evidence at trial of economic and noneconomic damages resulting from husbands wrongful death