C. H. BARRINEAU, DOING BUSINESS AS BUILD WITH BRICK COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
CLAUDE E. CASTLEBERRY, 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 damages award, finding it excessive and ordering a remittitur or reversal.
The court held that the award of $1400.00 was excessive and should not exceed $1000.00 under the circumstances.
“We think the recovery should not exceed $1000.00 under the circumstances appearing of record.”
This quote establishes the court's finding that the original award was excessive.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff was awarded $1400.00 in damages for personal injuries sustained while working for the defendant at a brick plant. Actual damages for los…
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 Personal Injury Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
— In this case plaintiff had a recovery of $1400.00 damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff while he was working for the defend*390ant at'his brick plant. Actual, damage's in the loss of time sustained was shown to have amounted to $420.00. It was not shown that any of the injuries were permanent in character, though painful.
We think the recovery should not exceed $1000.00 under the circumstances appearing of record. See Jernigan v. Thompson, 103 Fla. 784, 139 Sou. Rep. 366. The judgment should therefore be reversed unless the defendant in error shall within ten days enter a remittitur of $400.00 as of the date of the judgment, in which case the judgment shall stand affirmed as of date thereof. It is so- ordered.
Affirmed on condition of remittitur.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Se. Home Mortg. Co. v. Roll, 171 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…did not endorse the note, the trial court, in this common-law action, was powerless to hold appellant liable on the promissory note. The equitable theory that the appellant participated in the proceeds will not support the judgment. Falk v. Salario, 108 Fla. 389, 146 So. 193 (1933). Accordingly, the judgment against the appellant must be reversed. Therefore, other points presented by the appellant need not be considered. The appellee has filed and argued a cross-assignment of error urging that the court er…
Authorities Cited
- Jernigan v. Thompson, 103 Fla. 784 (Fla. 1931)