560 So.2d 808, 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (quoting Rivera v. Aldrich, 538 So.2d 1390, 1392 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)). The hallmarks of. a compromised verdict in a tort claim are a clearly inadequate damage award coupled with a finding of liability in a case where liability was hotly contested. See Watson v. Builders Square, Inc., 563 So.2d 721, 722 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). An improper compromised verdict on the issue of liability is highly probable when the jury returns a verdict finding that the defendant negligently caused injury to plaintiff, but “awarded [the plaintiff] her [past] medical expenses without considering non-economic damages.” Food Lion v. Jackson, 712 So.2d 800, 802 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); see also Ochlockonee Banks Rest., Inc. v. Colvin, 700 So.2d 1229, 1231 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) .(<HOLDING>); Bucci v. Auto Builders S. Fla., Inc., 690
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 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 that a jury cannot award damages for medical expenses and lost wages without also awarding damages for pain and suffering where the plaintiff was injured due to the defendants negligence holding that prejudgment interest may properly be added to damage awards for past lost wages medical expenses that have been incurred and past pain and suffering but not future loss of earnings future medical expenses andor future pain and suffering recognizing as an element of pain and suffering