CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, JOHN J. QUINN, DOING BUSINESS AS JOHN J. QUINN & COMPANY, AND THE POSTAL TELEGRAPH-CABLE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
MARY A. FIRTH, A FEME SOLE, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a judgment awarding $5000 in damages to a plaintiff injured in a city excavation. The court found the damages excessive but affirmed the judgment if the plaintiff agreed to a reduction.
Yes, the award of $5000 in compensatory damages was manifestly excessive. The judgment can stand affirmed for $2500 if the plaintiff agrees to remit $2500 of the damages.
“There is evidence to sustain a verdict -for compensatory damages against the defendant, and no material or harmful errors appear except that the amount awarded as compensatory damages is manifestly excessive.”
This quote establishes the court's finding that the damages awarded were excessive despite sufficient evidence for liability.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff sustained injuries, including a broken arm, from falling into an unguarded excavation in a city street. The defendants appealed a $5000 …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Excessive Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
A writ of error was taken by the defendants to a judgment for $5000.00 as damages for injuries including a broken arm and other bruises sustained by the plaintiff by falling into an unguarded excavation in a street of the city. Technical defenses that might or might not have been available to the city were not duly interposed. There is evidence to sustain a verdict -for compensatory damages against the defendant, and no material or harmful errors appear except that the amount awarded as compensatory damages is manifestly excessive. If within thirty days after the filing of the mandate In the trial court, the plaintiff remits. $2500.00 of the damages awarded, the judgment will stand affirmed for $2500.00 otherwise the judgment will stand reversed for a new trial. Tampa Electric Co. v. Gaffga, 81 Fla. 268; 93 South. 148.
It is so ordered.
Taylor, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Browne and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Engle v. State, 438 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 1983)…THE FIRST DEGREE AND MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE”? 359 So. 2d at 865-66. We answered the question in the negative and approved the district court’s decision, noting the following regarding limited rein-structions: In Hysler v. State, 85 Fla. 153, 95 So. 573 (1923), this Court established the principle that it is proper for a judge to limit the repetition of the charges to those specially requested as any additional instruction might needlessly protract the proceedings. We echoed this principle in Hedge…
-
Henry v. State, 359 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 1978)…E AND MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE”? We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution, to entertain the certified question, and in accordance therewith, we answer it in the negative. In Hysler v. State, 85 Fla. 153, 95 So. 573 (1923), this Court established the principle that it is proper for a judge to limit the repetition of the charges to those specially requested as any additional instruction might needlessly protract the proceedings. We echoed this principle in Hedge…
-
Stockton v. State, 544 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 1989)…ell-established principle that it is proper for a trial judge to limit reinstruction to the charges requested, as long as the repeated charges are complete on the subject involved. Id. at 868; Hedges, 172 So. 2d at 826; Hysler v. State, 85 Fla. 153, 95 So. 573 (1923). Here, the trial judge did not limit his reinstruction to the jury’s specific request; rather, he added manslaughter to it. We do not question the trial judge’s decision to add manslaughter to the reinstruction. However, after making that de…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tampa Elec. Co. v. Consuela Gaffga, 81 Fla. 268 (Fla. 1921)