JOHN W. MARTIN, AS TRUSTEE OF THE PROPERTY OF FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
CONCETTA M. JOHNS, AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF GUS JOHNS, DECEASED, APPELLEE
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 affirmed a jury verdict for the appellee in a wrongful death case, finding that the appellant's argument that the verdict was excessive was an unwarranted intrusion upon the jury's function.
No, the jury's verdict was not excessive. Any conclusion by the court that the verdict was excessive would be an intrusion upon the jury function.
“Any conclusion by us that the verdict of the jury in this instance was excessive would in our judgment be an intrusion upon the jury function.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for not overturning the jury's verdict on the grounds of excessiveness.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case was on its second appeal to the Florida Supreme Court. The original plaintiff, Gus Johns, died after the first trial, and his estate's admin…
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.
PER CURIAM.
This cause is here the second time. See Martin v. Johns, Fla.1955, 78 So. 2d 398.
Shortly after the first trial, the original plaintiff, Gus Johns, died. The pleadings were amended and the cause proceeded to the second trial by the above named appel-lee, as administratrix, under Section 45.11, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. At the second trial the jury 'brought in a verdict for the appellee in the amount of $8,550. Appellant again assaults the verdict on the ground that it is excessive to the point that it shocks the'conscience of the Court. We have carefully examined the record and the briefs of the parties. Any conclusion by us that the verdict of the jury in this instance was excessive would in our judgment be an intrusion upon the jury function.
No other errors having been alleged and finding as we do, that the verdict should not be disturbed, the judgment appealed from is
Affirmed.
DREW, C. J, and TERRELL, HOB-SON and THORNAL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- John W. Martin for Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Gus Johns, 78 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 1955)