JAMES C. HICKS, APPELLANT,
v.
YELLOW FREIGHT SYSTEMS, INC. AND DONALD TATUM, 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 the trial court did not err in denying the appellant's motions for judgment in accordance with a motion for directed verdict and for a new trial.
Appellant appealed the denial of his motions following a jury verdict in favor of appellees in a negligence action. The appellant raised issues regard…
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 Motion For New Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM,
James C. Hicks appeals the denials of his motion for judgment in accordance with the motion for directed verdict and his motion for new trial following a jury verdict in favor of appellees in this negligence action. We affirm.
We find that the judgment here is supported by competent substantial evidence. Thus, the trial court did not err in denying the appellant’s motion for judgment in accordance with the motion for directed verdict. Jones v. Rives, 680 So. 2d 450, 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
Further, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion for new trial on the two issues raised. Smith v. Brown, 525 So. 2d 868 (Fla.1988). First, as a result of the appellant’s self-contradictory testimony, we find an adequate basis in the record for the jury to have rejected appellant’s testimony relating to the existence and extent of his continuing pain. Thus, the jury had a sound basis to reject the expert medical testimony based upon appellant’s subjective complaints of pain. Easkold v. Rhodes, 614 So. 2d 495 (Fla.1993).
Second, because appellant failed to object to the allegedly improper statements by appellee’s counsel during closing argument and because counsel’s conduct during closing argument was not so egregious as to constitute fundamental error, the motion for new trial was properly denied. Tremblay v. Santa Rosa County, 688 So. 2d 985, 987-88 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Hagan v. Sun Bank of Mid-Florida, N.A., 666 So. 2d 580, 583 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). We emphasize our recent advice to parties seeking reversal based upon an allegedly improper closing argument, “[i]f counsel intends to appeal to this court, they would be well-advised to object.” Winterberg v. Johnson, 692 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997){quoting Donahue v. FPA Corp., 677 So. 2d 882, 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)).
AFFIRMED.
MINER, WOLF and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sheffield v. Superior Ins. Co., 741 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…ds’ testimony implied that the cervical injury was in the process of healing. It was for the jury to resolve conflicting evidence on the issue of permanency. See Easkold v. Rhodes, 614 So. 2d 495, 497 (Fla.1993); Hicks v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 694 So. 2d 869, 870 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); cf. Ullman v. City of Tampa Parks Dep’t, 625 So. 2d 868, 873-74 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). But see Allstate Insurance Co. v. Thomas, 637 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). As the finder of fact, the jury was free to “accept such [e…
-
Rutherford v. Lyzak, 698 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(f). That type of order should have prompted an objection by counsel, given case law that requires objections during closing to preserve appellate issues. See Weise; Hagan; Hicks v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 694 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). We also note that the plaintiff did raise two objections on closing, but not to those comments which are the subject of this appeal. Reversed and remanded for reinstatement of the final judgment. WARNER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concu…
-
Aldona Lynn Reid and Jerry Reid v. Med. & Prof'l Mgmt. Consultants, Inc., 744 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…jected by the jury based upon, among other things, the reasons given by the witness for the opinion expressed as well as all the other evidence in the case. See Easkold, 614 So. 2d at 496-497. See also Hicks v. Yel [*1119] low Freight Systems, Inc., 694 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)(upholding trial court’s denial of motion for new trial because plaintiffs self-contradictory subjective complaints of pain gave jury sound basis for rejecting expert medical testimony based on plaintiffs self-reports); Wynn v. Mu…
Authorities Cited
- Easkold v. Rhodes, 614 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1993)
- Hagan v. SUN Bank OF Mid-Florida, N.A., 666 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- THE FLA. BAR RE AMENDMENT TO RULES REGULATING THE FLA. BAR (RULE 1-4.3, 525 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 1988)
- Smith v. Brown, 525 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 1988)
- Graggs v. State, 688 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Donahue v. FPA Corp., 677 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Winterberg v. Johnson, 692 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Chana Jones v. Rives, 680 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)