IDA THOMAS, APPELLANT,
v.
ALBERT M. FOWLER AND FREDDIE LEE YOUNG, APPELLEES
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 held that even if verdict forms were confusing, the appellant's agreement to their use and the clear factual support for the jury's findings preclude a new trial on that basis.
The jury awarded the appellant $2,700 but found her deceased son 60% negligent. The appellant sought a new trial, claiming the verdict forms were conf…
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 Verdict Form cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Chief Judge.
This case involves the use of verdict forms which, to say the least, were very poorly drafted. We have no difficulty affirming the amount of damages arrived at from the first form, but the forms admittedly are confusing when it comes to who is liable for payment. Nonetheless, we affirm.
Certain things, however, are clear. The jury verdict awarded $2,700 to the appellant, but found her deceased son 60% negligent. The facts and the record clearly support such a result. The situation, on the one hand, boils down to an appellant who is dissatisfied with the amount of the verdict trying understandably to obtain a new trial claiming that the verdict forms were confusing about who was to pay her.1 On the other hand, all those who are responsible to pay her have not complained about the confusion, also no doubt because of the amount awarded. They have not cross appealed and one of them is ready to pay in full.
If we had to, we might find the above sufficient in and of themselves to affirm this cause, but there is more. The very verdict forms complained of were not only used without objection, but discussion in the record reveals they were specifically agreed to by the appellant. Robbins v. Graham, 404 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). As a consequence we affirm the lower court’s judgment and remand only for the purpose of having the trial court correct its order of April 30, 1981 in which it obviously inadvertently transposed the names of the two appellees.
AFFIRMED.
DOWNEY and BERANEK, JJ., concur. . Of course, she also claims the verdict amount is confusing but we do not agree with that.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Evering v. Ollie M. Smithwick, M.D. & Ollie M. Smithwick, M.D., P.A., 526 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…d in denying the request for separate punitive damage verdict forms for Smithwick and the PA. In fact, they argued against the use of separate verdict forms when Evering implored the trial court to submit distinct forms. [*187] See Thomas v. Fowler, 414 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (verdict form affirmed where appellant specifically agreed to its use); Tidwell v. Toca, 362 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (party’s failure to object to verdict form at trial prevents review of form on appeal), cert. denied, 368 S…
-
Horizon Leasing v. Leefmans, 568 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…orizon alleges error in four areas. We find unpersuasive Horizon’s initial allegation of error in the use of a special verdict form, as Horizon agreed to the form and stipulated to the jury instructions, thereby waiving the matter. Thomas v. Fowler, 414 So. 2d 215 (Fla. [*75] 4th DCA 1982); Robbins v. Graham, 404 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Therefore, only if there were fundamental error or constitutional error,would this assignment of error be reviewable. McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Brown, 486 So.…
-
Blackbeard Charters v. Farrell F. Helm and Leann Helm, 585 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Colonial Stores, Inc. v. Scarbrough, 355 So. 2d 1181 (Fla.1978); Atlantic Greyhound Lines v. Lovett, 134 Fla. 505, 184 So. 133 (1938); Thomas v. Fowler, 414 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Allstate Insurance Co. v. A.D.H., Inc., 397 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Variety Children’s Hospital, Inc. v. Perkins, 382 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), rev’d on other grounds, 445 So. 2d 1010 (Fla.1984); Tidwell v. Toca, 362…
Authorities Cited
- Robbins v. Graham, 404 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)