SAUNDERS TRANSFER COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
MYRTLE UNDERWOOD, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 reviewed a personal injury judgment, finding the award excessive and requiring a remittitur or a new trial.
The court held that the award of $6,500 was excessive. However, the plaintiff had the right to sue alone as a deserted wife. The judgment can stand affirmed for $5,000 if a remittitur is entered; otherwise, it will be reversed.
“the assignment of error that the verdict is excessive is well taken in this ease; and on the whole record justice requires a remmittitur of $1,500.00, or a reversal of the judgment for a new trial.”
This quote establishes the court's finding that the damages awarded were excessive and outlines the two possible outcomes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Myrtle Underwood sued Saunders Transfer Company for personal injuries sustained when her automobile was struck by the defendant's motor car.…
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 Excessive Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
— In this action to recover damages for personal injuries caused by a motor car being run against an automobile standing on the highway, in which the plaintiff was seated, the general issue, the right of the plaintiff to sue alone, and contributory negligence were pleaded. Verdict and judgement for plaintiff in $6,500 damages were rendered, and defendant took writ of error. Plaintiff brought the action as “a married woman whose husband had deserted her for six months,” and there is evidence to sustain the allegation thus giving her a right to maintain the action. Sec. 1368, Gen. Stats. 1906, Compiled Laws, 1914.
The assignment of error that the verdict is excessive is well taken in this ease; and on the whole record justice requires a remmittitur of $1,500.00, or a reversal of the judgment for a new trial. See Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Frank, 76 Fla. 384, 80 South. Rep. 60; Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Scott, 76 Fla. 336, 79 South. Rep. 767. If a remittitur of §1,500.00 is entered, the judgment will stand affirmed for §5,000.'00, otherwise, the judgment will stand reversed for a new trial.
It is so ordered.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor and West, J. J. concur.
Ellis, J.,
dissents upon the ground of variance between the allegations and proof -that the plaintiff was a married woman whose husband had deserted her. Judgment should be reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Shouse, 83 Fla. 156 (Fla. 1922)…ed. Florida Ry. & Nav. Co. v. Webster, 25 Fla. 394, 5 South. Rep. 714; Florida East Coast R. Co. v. Hayes, 67 Fla. 101, 64 South. Rep. 504; Florida East Coast R. Co. v. Schumacher, 63 Fla. 137, 57 South. Rep. 603; Saunders Transfer Co. v. Underwood, 77 Fla. 167, 81 South. Rep. 105; Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Scott, 76 Fla. 336, 79 South. Rep. 767; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Conant, 79 Fla. 668, 84 South. Rep. 688; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Pitkin, 64 Fla. 24, 59 South. Rep. 564; Tampa Electric Co…
-
Luce v. Lee, 79 Fla. 693 (Fla. 1920)…all the evidence appear excessive. If the plaintiff enters a remittitur of $500.00, the judgment will stand affirmed for the remainder; otherwise, the judgment will stand reversed for a new trial. L. & N. Ry. Co. v. Frank, 76 Fla. 384; 76 Fla. 336; 77 Fla. 167. It is so ordered. Browne, C. J., and Taylor,, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.…
-
S. Fla. Farms Co. v. Stevenson, 84 Fla. 235 (Fla. 1922)…790; Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. Seymour, 44 Fla. 557, 33 South. Rep. 424; Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. Foxworth, 45 Fla. 278, 34 South. Rep. 270; Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Simon, 56 Fla. 545, 47 South. Rep. 1001; Saunders Transfer Co. v. Underwood, 77 Fla. 167, 81 South. Rep. 105; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Frank, 76 Fla. 384, 80 South. Rep. 60; Luce v. Lee, 79 Fla. 693, 84 South. Rep. 726; Tampa Elec. Co. v. Gaffga, 81 Fla. 268, 87 South. Rep. 922; Lindsey Turpentine Co. v. Soule. 81 Fla. 339, 87 South. R…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Scott, 76 Fla. 336 (Fla. 1918)
- Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Frank, 76 Fla. 384 (Fla. 1918)