VICTOR HOTEL OWNERS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
FANNIE SPERLING AND SAMUEL SPERLING, HER HUSBAND, 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 appellate court affirmed a jury verdict and judgment for a hotel guest who sued for injuries sustained from tripping in the hotel lobby. The court found no prejudicial error in the trial proceedings that would warrant reversal.
No, the appellate court found that the errors, if any, were not of a substantial or prejudicial character sufficient to warrant a reversal of the judgment.
“The appellant urges five points upon which it relies for a reversal of the judgment.”
This quote introduces the grounds for appeal presented by the hotel.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA hotel guest alleged she was injured when she tripped and fell in the hotel lobby due to the negligent installation and maintenance of the lobby's ru…
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 Miscarriage Of Justice cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellee-wife was a guest in appellant’s hotel. While traversing the lobby of the hotel, she allegedly tripped, fell and sustained injuries. The injuries, she alleged, were occasioned by appellant’s negligent installation and maintenance of a rug or carpeting covering the floor in the lobby. The appellant denied the material allegations of negligence and affirmatively charged the appellee-wife with contributory negligence as the proximate cause of her injury. Upon the issues made by the pleadings, the cause was tried to a jury resulting in a verdict favorable to the appellee-wife. Judgment was entered on the verdict and this appeal has been taken from the judgment.
The appellant urges five points upon which it relies for a reversal of the judgment. We have carefully considered each of these points and conclude that they do not constitute error of such substantial character as would warrant a reversal. A consideration of the entire record of the trial proceedings below does not convince us that the errors, if any, were so prejudicial as to have resulted in a miscarriage of justice. See § 54.23, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
No harmful error having been made to appear, the judgment appealed from should be and it is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON and PEARSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (22 total)
-
Ellison v. State, 349 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…s defense counsel who first opened the door to the line of questioning. Florida courts follow the “invited error” rule, which stands for the proposition that an appellant may not take advantage of an error which he has induced. Arsenault v. Thomas, 104 So. 2d 120 (Fla.3d DCA 1958); City of Coral Gables v. Levlson, 220 So. 2d 430 (Fla.3d DCA 1969); Sullivan v. State, 303 So. 2d 632 (Fla.1974); Castle v. State, 305 So. 2d 794 (Fla.4th DCA 1974). Constitutional rights may be waived just as other rights may be…
-
Commodore Plaza AT Century 21 Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Cohen, 350 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…utes (1975). The controversy was resolved by [*507] the parties agreeing to the trial court’s deferring of ruling on the distribution of the escalated rentals, pending determination of that issue by the Supreme Court of Florida. Arsenault v. Thomas, 104 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1962); Union Trust Company v. Baker, 143 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 2nd D.C.A. 1962); Holmes v. School Board of Orange County, 301 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1974). Therefore, we find no error in the order and judgment appealed in Cases Nos.…
-
Lesperance v. Lesperance, 257 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…ror induced by counsel for the appellant and she will not now be heard to complain of the trial court’s action in accordance with the request and stipulation of her counsel. Borst v. Gale, 99 Fla. 376, 126 So. 290; Arsenault v. Thomas, Fla.App.1958, 104 So. 2d 120; 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, § 313; Accord, Gagnon v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So. 2d 337. Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the orders here under review be and the same are hereby affirmed. Affirmed. . No contention has been made that the lien s…
Previewing 3 of 22 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence