SIGURD SEVERSON,
v.
C. H. BOOMER
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 defendant in a personal injury case. The court found that while the trial judge's jury instructions contained "unnecessary talk," they were not demonstrably harmful, and there was sufficient conflicting evidence to support the jury's conclusion.
No, the jury instructions, while containing some "unnecessary talk," were not positively harmful, and there was ample evidence to support the jury's verdict.
“The charge is afflicted with some unnecessary talk and remarks but on the whole, we cannot say positively that it was harmful.”
This quote establishes the court's finding regarding the jury instructions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, Sigurd Severson, was struck and injured by an automobile driven by the defendant, C. H. Boomer, while crossing a street in St. Petersbu…
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 Conflicting Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff in Error was struck and injured by an automobile driven by Defendant in Error as he was *720crossing Central Avenue in St. Petersburg, Florida. He brought this action for personal injuries. A trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for the defendant and plaintiff took writ of error. All errors assigned in this Court are predicated on the charge of the trial Court to the jury.
We have examined all charges complained of including the pertinent evidence. The charge is afflicted with some unnecessary talk and remarks but on the whole, we cannot say positively that it was harmful. The pertinent evidence was in conflict but there is ample direct evidence to support the verdict.
The verdict of a jury approved by the trial court will not be reversed when the record as a whole is- as consistent or more so with the conclusion of the jury as it is with any other theory.
It is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
Ellis, C. J. and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.