FLORIDA MOTOR LINES, INC.,
v.
MYRTLE E. HARRIS
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 affirmed a lower court's judgment awarding $2,500 in damages to a plaintiff injured in a bus-streetcar collision, finding no reversible error in the proceedings. However, two justices believed the award was excessive and suggested a remittitur.
The court found no reversible error in the record and affirmed the judgment of the lower court.
“We have carefully considered the record in the light of the splendid briefs prepared and submitted to us by counsel for the respective parties with the result that we find no reversible error.”
This quote establishes the majority's finding that the trial court's proceedings were free of reversible error.
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 sued Florida Motor Lines, Inc. for damages, alleging injuries sustained as a passenger on a streetcar that collided with the defendant's…
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 Damages For Injuries cases and more on FLexlaw
— Writ of error here is to a judgment in favor of the plaintiff entered in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, which judgment was for the sum of $2,500.00.
The suit was based upon the claim of the plaintiff for damages because of injuries received by reason of the collision between defendant’s bus and a street car, on which plaintiff was a passenger, and which collision and injury it was alleged was caused by the negligent operation of the bus by defendant through its agents and servant.
We have carefully considered the record in the light of the splendid briefs prepared and submitted to us by counsel for the respective parties with the result that we find no reversible error.
Mr. Justice Whitfield and Mr. Justice Buford are of the opinion that the amount of the judgment appears to be excessive and that a remittitur of $1,000.00 should be required as a condition to affirmance of the judgment.
The judgment is therefore affirmed.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
COX v. Game, 373 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)…deciding whether title by adverse possession has been acquired. Measured against the foregoing criteria, the appellants failed to sustain their claim of adverse possession. Appellants rely primarily upon Ben-Jay Inv. Co. v. Stillman, 114 Fla. 703, 154 So. 829 (1934). In affirming the denial of a motion to dismiss a complaint for quiet title the court said: The claim of ownership adverse to that of complainants consisted in platting, and selling according to said plat, the lands brought in question. It i…
-
Sucro v. Worthington, 104 F.2d 472 (4th Cir. 1939)…e Supreme Court of North Carolina, it has been held in other jurisdictions that platting lands and laying them off into town lots for purposes of sale are acts of ownership constituting adverse possession. Ben-Jay Inv. Co. v. Stillman, 114 Fla. 703, 154 So. 829; Ross v. Houston Oil Fields Ass’n, Tex.Civ.App., 88 S.W. 2d 586, 594. See also Cashion v. Meredith, 333 Mo. 970, 64 S.W. 2d 670, 673. Such acts certainly evidence the exercise of dominion quite as clearly as the building of a fence. As said by Judge…