GABLES LINCOLN-MERCURY, INC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
HELEN HENKIN, 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.
In this negligence case, defendants appealed a $6,250 jury verdict in favor of plaintiff pedestrian Henkin, while Henkin cross-appealed for inadequate damages. The Florida appellate court affirmed the judgment, rejecting both the defendants' challenge to causation and the plaintiff's argument that the damages award was inadequate.
The trial court properly denied defendants' motion for directed verdict because the question of whether defendants' vehicle caused Henkin's vehicle to strike the plaintiff was a factual question properly reserved for jury determination based on conflicting evidence. The trial court also properly denied plaintiff's motion for new trial, as the damages award, though less than documented expenses, was not so inadequate as to warrant a new trial.
“The question of whether or not the defendant's activity caused the Henkin car to run the plaintiff down is one of fact based on conflicting evidence, and properly reserved for jury determination.”
Establishes that causation disputes with conflicting evidence must be submitted to the jury, supporting denial of directed verdict.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJoseph Lee, an employee of Gables Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., was driving a car owned by Goble Aircraft, Spec., Inc. that had been serviced by Gables Linco…
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 Elements Of Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by some of the defendants and plaintiff from a judgment in plaintiff’s favor entered pursuant to a jury verdict of $6,250.00. The defendants claim error in the failure of the trial court to direct a verdict in their favor, and the plaintiff asserts error for the court’s failure to grant a new trial on the issue of damages.
The defendant, Joseph Lee was driving the car owned by the defendant Goble Aircraft, Spec., Inc. At the time, defendant Lee was an employee of the defendant, Gables Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. The car in question owned by Goble Aircraft had been serviced by Gables Lincoln-Mercury and was being delivered to its *775owner by Lee when the accident occurred. The car driven by Lee struck the car owned and operated by the other defendant, Helen Henkin, causing1 the Henkin car-to strike the plaintiff, a pedestrian.
The defendants- — Lee, Goble and Gables’ contention is predicated on the factual argument that their car hitting the Henkin car did not cause it to strike the plaintiff. The question of whether or not the defendant’s activity caused the Henkin car to run the plaintiff down is one of fact based on conflicting evidence, and properly reserved for jury determination.2 The trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion for directed verdict. We have considered the other errors assigned by defendants-appellants and deem them to be without merit. We now turn our consideration to the cross-appeal of plaintiff.
The jury awarded a verdict of $6,250.00, in spite of evidence of out-of-pocket expenses of $6,532.82. Plaintiff contends that it was error to deny her motion for new trial because the damages awarded were so inadequate that it was apparent that the jury did not consider the elements of damages as charged by the court, and that the verdict was based upon other than the court’s instructions and the evidence adduced. We cannot agree. We think the trial judge was correct in denying the motion for new trial.3
Accordingly the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sweeney v. Lorene Wiggins & Allstate Ins. Co., 350 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…ence to support the jury’s verdict and the trial judge did not err in denying the motion for new trial based upon the inadequacy of the damages awarded. Cf. Weiss v. Goldman, 120 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960); Gables Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. v. Henkin, 173 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). Sweeney also argues that the trial judge erred in refusing to publish the first verdict returned to the jury. We find no error. The jury’s initial verdict was not in proper form and the trial judge was eminently correct in info…
Authorities Cited
- City OF Miami v. Smith, 165 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1964)
- Bassett v. Edwards, 158 Fla. 848 (Fla. 1947)
- Theriault v. Sellers B. Rogers and William Bruce Rogers, 166 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Chilton v. Dockstader, 126 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Rothrock v. Patasy, 170 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)