GROTH AIR SERVICE, INC. AND AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL ASSURANCE CO., LTD., APPELLANTS,
v.
FLORIDA FREIGHT TERMINAL, INC. AND DADE FACILITIES, 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.
Appellants' challenge to a jury verdict finding Dade Facilities negligent in loading a cargo airplane was rejected because the verdict was supported by competent substantial evidence and no reversible error was demonstrated.
A jury verdict finding negligence in the loading of a cargo airplane is affirmed when supported by competent substantial evidence and the trial court properly denies motions for new trial and juror interviews.
Groth Air Service and American International Assurance sued Dade Facilities (successor to Florida Freight Terminal) for negligently loading a cargo ai…
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 Negligent Loading cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants seek reversal of an adverse final judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict in an action charging appellee Dade Facilities1 with negligently loading a cargo airplane, resulting in damage to the airplane and loss to the appellants.
On appeal it is contended that (1) the jury’s verdict was not supported by competent substantial evidence and was against the manifest weight of the evidence, consequently, the trial court erred in denying the motion for new trial; and (2) the trial court erred in denying the motion for order permitting appellants to interview the jurors.
Upon careful consideration of appellants’ contentions in the light of the record, briefs and arguments of counsel, we have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated. See Dover Corp. v. Dean, 473 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 475 So. 2d 693 (Fla.1985); Schofield v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 461 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), cert. denied, 472 So. 2d 1182 (Fla.1985); Cummings v. Sine, 404 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Thompson v. Jacobs, 314 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Vanzant v. Davies, 215 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968), cert. denied, 225 So. 2d 529 (Fla.1969).
Affirmed.
. Dade Facilities is the successor in interest to appellee Florida Freight Terminal, Inc.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Daytona Beach v. Amsel, 585 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…culation of average weekly wage when such benefits have a real present day value to the employee, i.e., “the worker must be able to withdraw the funds at will or the vesting of the benefits must be assured.” Munroe Regional Medical Center v. Ricker, 489 So. 2d 785, 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), citing Smith v. Sunland Training Center, 455 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). See also Sunland Training Center v. Irving, 384 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Sick leave benefits may be included in the calculation if it is p…
-
Tobin v. Alfieri Maserati, 513 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…ain statements of the defendants’ agents. A careful review of the trial transcript and briefs of the parties discloses that the jury verdict is supported by substantial competent evidence; see Groth Air Serv., Inc. v. Florida Freight Terminal, Inc., 489 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Thompson v. Jacobs, 314 So. 2d 797, 799-800 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Bryans v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 191 So. 2d 624, 625 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966), the plaintiff’s evidence of alleged “Lemon Law” violations by the defendants was contradict…
-
Avon Park Corr. Inst. & Alexisis Risk Mgmt. Serv. v. Campbell, 565 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…p, Inc. v. Carreras, 516 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). In order to include claimant’s fringe benefits in the calculation of average weekly wage, there must be some evidence that said benefits were vested. Munroe Regional Medical Center v. Ricker, 489 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). In the instant case, there is absolutely no evidence that the fringe benefits which were utilized in calculating average weekly wage were, in fact, vested. Accordingly, based upon the dictates of Bee Gee Shrimp, Inc. v. Carrer…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Thompson v. Jacobs, 314 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Betty and George Schofield v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 461 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Cummings v. Sine, 404 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Dover Corp. v. Dean, 473 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Edmor Props., Inc. v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 225 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 1969)
- Vanzant v. Davies, 225 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 1969)
- Elvia C. Vanzant v. Davies, 215 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)