MALCOLM B. MCDONALD
v.
VIVIAN J. STONE, ET VIR.
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.
A personal injury plaintiff recovered $5,000 in damages for injuries sustained in an automobile collision. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the judgment against the defendant's claims that the jury instruction was erroneous and the damages award was excessive.
The trial court did not err in its jury instruction when considered as a whole, and the jury's damage award of $5,000 was not unreasonably excessive given the plaintiff's injuries and circumstances.
“the charges of the court must be considered as a whole and not in fragments. When so considered and found to be free from error, an assignment based on any portion of them must fail”
Establishes the standard for reviewing jury instructions—they must be evaluated in their entirety rather than isolated parts
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff was injured in an automobile collision. She was accomplished in music and journalism and performed for her own pleasure and family's enj…
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 Automobile Collision cases and more on FLexlaw
— This was an action for personal injuries resulting from an automobile collision. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000), to which writ of error was prosecuted.
It is first contended that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that the plaintiff may recover from the defendant if the latter was shown to be negligent, without further charging that the negligence of the defendant must have proximately contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries.
This Court has repeatedly held that the charges of the court must be considered as a whole and not in fragments. When so considered and found to be free from error, an assignment based on any portion of them must fail. In *609the light of this rule, we are not convinced that error was committed in the charge.
The second and only additional assignment is predicated on the alleged excessiveness of the verdict and judgment.
■ The record discloses that the plaintiff was accomplished in music and journalism, that she performed for her own pleasure and that of her family, that she suffered severe shock from the accident, that her arm was broken and carried in a cast for six or eight weeks, and that it was dressed and bandaged for three or four months, and that her wrist was permanently restricted and impaired.
The question of damages in such cases is one lodged in the sound discretion of the jury within reasonable bounds. In the instant case, the jury heard the evidence, observed the plaintiff and in view of all the facts as recited, we are unable to say that their discretion was unreasonably exercised.
The judgment of the Circuit Court is therefore affirmed.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bell Bakeries, Inc. v. Giles, 145 Fla. 148 (Fla. 1940)…el for plaintiff' contend that the amount of the judgment is not excessive and as a basis for their conclusions cite the cases of Mansfield v. King, 142 Fla. 650, 195 So. 700; Ferguson v. Gangwer, 140 Fla. 704, 192 So. 196; [*151] McDonald v. Stone, 114 Fla. 608, 154 So. 327. We have considered each of these cases and, conclude that the verdict of the jury is fully sustained by the evidence. It was within the sound discretion.of the jury which heard the evidence, observed the parties and reviewed all the fa…
-
Rosenberg v. Coman, 134 Fla. 768 (Fla. 1938)…ies are permanent. Also that possible relief by an operation was very doubtful. We have considered the rule expressed in Jernigan v. Thompson, 103 Fla. 784, 139 So. 366. We do not think the amount of the judgment is excessive. See McDonald v. Stone, 114 Fla. 608, 154 So. 327; DeVane v. Bauman, 82 Fla. 346, 90 So. 192. We have read the record and examined the authorities [*776] cited by counsel, but fail to find error in the record. The judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed. Ei.lis, C. J., and Whitfiel…
-
Paul Eghigian of the State of Mich. v. Rice, 160 Fla. 278 (Fla. 1948)…ly apprise the jury of their providence under the issues, so that they can fairly and impartially arrive at a verdict, the charges should be considered ample. We can find no error in the charges that would be prejudicial. McDonald v. Stone, et al., 114 Fla. 608, 154 So. 327. As regards the requested charges which were denied and assigned as error, we are of the opinion that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying said charges. It will also be observed from the record in this case that the…