R. R. TELLER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
DORA L. RICHTER, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND, LOUIS RICHTER, AND LOUIS RICHTER, DEFENDANTS 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 consolidated case where a wife and husband sued a surgeon for alleged malpractice. The court found the jury's award to the wife to be excessive and offered a conditional affirmance.
The court held that the verdict of $7,000 for the wife was manifestly excessive. The judgment will be affirmed at $4,000 for the wife and $1,000 for the husband if the wife agrees to remit $3,000 of the award; otherwise, the judgment will be reversed for a new trial.
“There are a number of assignments of error, each of which has been considered. The record contains evidence proving legal liability within the allegation of the declaration and no harmful error appears except that in the amount allowed to the plaintiff upon whom the operation was performed the verdict is manifestly excessive.”
This quote establishes the court's finding of liability but also identifies the excessive damages as the sole harmful error.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA wife and husband sued a surgeon for damages resulting from an allegedly unskillful operation performed on the wife. The two suits were consolidated …
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 Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
West, J.
In suits brought against a surgeon by a wife and husband each of them claimed damages suffered because of the alleg'ed unskillful and negligent manner in which an operation was performed upon the wife by the surgeon. By order of the court the suits were consolidated. There was a verdict for the wife in the sum of $7,000 and for the husband in the sum of $1,000. Writ of Error was taken from this court.
There are a number of assignments of error, each of which has been considered. The record contains evidence proving legal liability within the allegation of the declaration and no harmful error appears except that in the amount allowed to the plaintiff upon whom the operation was performed the verdict is manifestly excessive.
If, within thirty days after the filing of the mandate in the trial court, the plaintiff Dora L. Richter remit $3,000 of the damages awarded to her, the judgment will be affirmed for $4,000 for plaintiff Dora L. Richter and $1,000 for plaintiff Louis Richter. Otherwise the judgment will stand reversed for new trial. A. C. L. R. Co. v. Oeland, 88 Fla. 122, 101 South. Rep. 360; City of Miami v. Firth, 85 Fla. 263, 95 South. Rep. 573; Luce v. Lee, 79 Fla. 693, 84 South. Rep. 726.
It is so ordered.
Whitfield, P. J., and Tebbell, J., concur. Tayloe, C. J., and Ellis and Bbowne, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hunt v. State, 120 Fla. 753 (Fla. 1935)…rom discharging its primary and paramount duty to exercise its governmental functions — • its police powers — for the protection of its citizens. In support of this contention, counsel for plaintiff in error cite Cawthon v. Town of DeFuniak Springs, 88 Fla. 306, 102 So. 251; Fla. East Coast Ry. Co. v. City of Miami, 76 Fla. 277, 79 So. 682; Page on Contracts, Vol. 6, Sec. 3690; Boyd v. Alabama, 24 L. Ed. 302, 94 U. S. 645; Holden v. Hardee, 169 U. S. 366, 42 L. Ed. 780; Phosphate Co. v. Priest, 67 Fla. 370…
Authorities Cited
- Luce v. Lee, 79 Fla. 693 (Fla. 1920)
- City of Miami v. Firth, 85 Fla. 263 (Fla. 1923)
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. a Corp. v. Oeland, 88 Fla. 122 (Fla. 1924)