HENRY THOMAS HARPER, A MINOR, BY HIS NEXT FRIEND, ELEANOR HYZER, AND ELEANOR HYZER FOR HERSELF, APPELLANTS,
v.
LOUISE K. ADAMS, 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 court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the jury instructions or the refusal to strike a juror for cause.
Appellants, plaintiffs in a personal injury action, appealed a jury verdict against them. They argued the trial judge erred by giving a jury charge on…
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 Challenge For Cause cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants, plaintiffs in the trial court,, appeal in adverse final judgment rendered upon a jury verdict in a personal injury action. They urge error on the part of the trial judge in giving a charge to the-jury on a Metropolitan Ordinance1 relative to pedestrian traffic alongside a street where no sidewalk was provided, and im refusing a challenge to a juror for alleged' cause.
We have examined the record and' find no error in the trial judge’s giving of the requested instruction in light of the evidence before him. It appears that possibly he should have given a charge as to whether or not the area wherein the injured party was walking was intended to be, in fact,, a sidewalk. However, our review in this-matter is precluded by the failure of counsel for the appellants to properly bring-before this court the requested charges-which were tendered to the trial judge. Therefore, in accordance with the following authorities, we are unable to consider this point. See: Thomas v. State ex rel. Roberts, 37 Fla. 378, 20 So. 529; Younglove v. Knox, 44 Fla. 743, 33 So. 427; 2 Fla. Jur., Appeals, § 318. Also see: Staicer v. Hall, Fla.App.1961, 130 So.2d 113; Crosby v. Stubblebine, Fla.App.1962, 142 So.2d 358; Busser v. Sabatasso, Fla.App.1962, 143 So.*825 2d 533. As to the question of the trial judge’s failure in refusing a challenge to ■a juror for alleged cause, it would appear that the point is not well-taken under the following authorities: Green v. State, 40 Fla. 191, 23 So. 851; Hicks v. State, Fla.App.1962, 138 So.2d 101; 20 Fla.Jur., Juries, § 98.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the judgment under review is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Allsup, 566 F.2d 68 (9th Cir. 1977)…eremptorily remove an objectionable juror where either it did not expend all of its peremptory challenges allocated to it or it was granted additional challenges commensurate in amount with the number of disputed proposed veniremen. Harper v. Adams, 166 So. 2d 824 (Fla.App.1964); Mellinger v. Prudential, 322 Mich. 596, 34 N.W. 2d 450 (Mich. 1948); Cox v. Sarkeys, 304 P. 2d 979 (Okl.1956). . In addressing the issue of whether an error in restricting the exercise of peremptory challenges warrants automatic rev…
Authorities Cited
- Green v. State, 40 Fla. 191 (Fla. 1898)
- Staicer v. Hall, 130 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Crosby v. Stubblebine, 142 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Younglove v. Knox, 44 Fla. 743 (Fla. 1902)
- Durrell Hicks v. State, 138 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Thomas v. The State of Fla. ex rel., 37 Fla. 378 (Fla. 1896)