MRS. DELLA MAE KEETON WOODS, APPELLANT,
v.
ERLE L. LOWERY, 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 held that a jury's informal statement during deliberations does not constitute a special verdict and that the jury's general verdict for the defendant was supported by the evidence.
Appellant sued for injuries, and the jury initially indicated potential negligence by the appellee. However, the jury later returned a general verdict…
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 General Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal presents principally questions of fact. We find that there was ample evidence for submission of the case to the jury and that the jury’s verdict was amply supported by the evidence.
Appellant strongly urges that during a discussion between the foreman of the jury and the trial court, when the jury sought additional instructions, a statement by the foreman indicating that the jury at that time may have thought that the appellee was guilty of at least some negligence, became in effect a special verdict which could not be overturned by the jury’s later formal verdict for the defendant. We conclude that there is no merit in this contention. The jury’s verdict for the defendant may well have been based on its finding that the defendant was partially negligent, but that his negligence was not a contributing cause to the injury complained of. There is nothing inconsistent in a finding of the jury that the defendant was negligent and its subsequent finding of a general verdict for the defendant. Moreover, we do not believe that the informal discussion between court and jury before the verdict is made can be transmuted into any sort of verdict.
We have carefully considered appellant’s complaints touching on the refusal of the trial court of certain of appellant’s requested instructions to the jury. We find no error in the court’s action in this regard. The judgment is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sims' Crane Serv., Inc. v. Ideal Steel Prods., Inc., 800 F.2d 1553 (11th Cir. 1986)
-
Kazan v. Wolinski, 721 F.2d 911 (3d Cir. 1983)