ETW CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
GOTTA HAVE IT GOLF, INC., APPELLEE
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.
Affirmed; where a general verdict is rendered without proper objection and multiple causes of action are submitted to the jury, reversal is improper when the appellant cannot establish prejudice as to one issue.
Where a general verdict is entered without proper objection and multiple causes of action are submitted to the jury, reversal is improper if the appellant cannot establish prejudice regarding one of the submitted issues.
[1] Under the two-issue rule, when a general verdict is rendered in favor of the plaintiff on multiple causes of action, reversal is improper where the appellant fails to est…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceETW Corporation appealed a judgment rendered by general verdict in favor of Gotta Have It Golf, Inc. involving multiple causes of action submitted to …
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 Two Issue Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
Affirmed. See Grenitz v. Tomlian, 858 So.2d 999, 1006 (Fla.2003) (“[W]here there is no proper objection to the use of a general verdict, reversal is improper where no error is found as to one of two issues submitted to the jury on the-‘basis that the appellant is unable to establish that he has been prejudiced.”) (citation omitted); Barth v. Khubani, 748 So.2d 260, 261-62 (Fla.1999) (“When a general verdict for the plaintiff is on review, the [two issue] rule is applied by focusing on the causes of action..,. The focus on the winning party’s actions .., is logical given that the opposing party has the burden of establishing prejudice on appeal.”); Food Lion, L.L.C. v. Henderson, 895 So.2d 1207, 1209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“[The plaintiffs] failure to raise the ‘two issue’ rule ... does not preclude our consideration and application of the rule. The policy behind the ‘two issue’ rule is similar to that underlying the harmless error rule.”); Johnson v. Thigpen, 788 So.2d 410, 415 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (“[T]he general verdict form did not have separate measures of damages for each of the four causes of action. The claim of error raised by [the defendant] as to the cause of action of intentional infliction of emotional distress cannot be the basis for reversal where three additional causes of action were presented to the jury and on which the jury found in favor of the [plaintiff].”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Roger v. Barth, 748 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1999)
- Huntley Johnson v. Thigpen, 788 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Mark S. Grenitz, M.D. v. Tomlian, 858 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 2003)
- Food Lion, L.L.C. v. Henderson, 895 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)