NETTIE PEARL CARROLL, APPELLANT,
v.
HERTZ CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, KURMAN TRUCKING CO., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND LEO MARTIN WEED, 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.
Plaintiff appealed from a judgment entered for defendants despite a jury verdict finding for the plaintiff but assessing zero damages. The court affirmed, holding that the plaintiff abandoned her argument regarding the inconsistent judgment and that the error was not fundamental enough to warrant reversal.
While it is error to enter judgment for defendants on a verdict for plaintiff, the error is not reversible in this case because the plaintiff abandoned the argument regarding the inconsistent judgment by failing to argue it in her brief, and the error does not constitute jurisdictional or fundamental error under the applicable rule.
“There can be no doubt that it is error to enter a judgment for the defendant upon a verdict for the plaintiff.”
Establishes the general principle that inconsistent judgment and verdict constitutes error
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case proceeded to trial on a stipulation in which defendants admitted liability, leaving only the issue of plaintiff's damages to be tried. The ju…
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 Manifest Weight Of The Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
The trial judge entered judgment for the defendants upon a verdict of the jury which read as follows:
“We, the Jury, find for the plaintiff, Nettie Pearl Carroll, against the Defendants and access [sic] her damages at None Dollars.”
The plaintiff has appealed and raised four points; three of which are based upon assignments directed to rulings by the trial judge during the trial. We find no error, but the fourth point merits discussion.
Plaintiff’s fourth point is:
“It was prejudicial error to enter final judgment for defendants on the verdict of 'no damages’ which was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.” 1
There can be no doubt that it is error to enter a judgment for the defendant upon a verdict for the plaintiff. The real question is whether the error is one upon which this appellant is entitled to a reversal.
We are informed by the briefs that the case proceeded to trial upon a stipulation (not in the record) by which defendants admitted liability. Therefore the issue tried was that of plaintiff’s damages, if any. We are not presented with a record of the proceedings before the court at the time the verdict was returned, and it is not shown that appellant (the then plaintiff) objected to the form of the verdict. The error of entering an inconsistent judgment is not argued in appellant’s brief. The thrust of her entire argument upon the point quoted is that under the evidence she was entitled to damages. Therefore, insofar as reversal under her assignments is concerned, the appellant has abandoned that portion of the point directed to the inconsistent judgment. This is pursuant to F.A.R. 3.7 (i) 31 F.S.A., which reads as follows:
“i. Points Not Argued Are Abcm-doned. Such assignments of error as are not argued in the briefs will be deemed abandoned and may not be argued orally. However, the Court, in the interest of justice, may notice jurisdictional or fundamental error apparent in the record-on-appeal, whether or not it has been argued in the briefs or made, the subject to an assignment of error, or of an objection or exception in the court below.”
*626We must, therefore, consider whether the error is “jurisdictional or fundamental”, as the words are used in the last sentence of this quoted rule. We think that it is not, because the appellant had a fair trial and received a verdict which is sensible upon the issue tried. The purpose of the rule is to permit an appellate court to expedite a just termination of litigation. Cf. Glassman v. Deauville Enterprises, Inc., Fla.App.1958, 99 So.2d 641.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
F.M.W. Props., Inc. v. Peoples First Fin. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 606 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…1 (Fla.1955) (emphasizes importance of points on appeal for proper judicial review), aff’d, 88 So. 2d 126 (Fla.1956) (en banc); Fla.R.App.P. 9.210(b)(5) (Committee notes from 1977 revision of sections (b), (c), (d), (e)); cf. Carroll v. Hertz Corp., 132 So. 2d 624, 625 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961) (disapproves of single 'double-barrelled' points addressing two issues), cert. denied, 138 So. 2d 333 (Fla.1962)." 497 So. 2d at 281. . The court similarly did not strike appellant’s brief in Williams v. State, Departme…
-
Seymour Singer v. Florentino Borbua, 497 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…1 (Fla.1955) (emphasizes importance of points on appeal for proper judicial review), aff'd, 88 So. 2d 126 (Fla.1956) (en banc); Fla.R.App.P. 9.210(b)(5) (Committee notes from 1977 revision of sections (b), (c), (d), (e)); cf. Carroll v. Hertz Corp., 132 So. 2d 624, 625 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961) (disapproves of single “double-barrelled” points addressing two issues), cert, denied, 138 So. 2d 333 (Fla.1962). The final judgment under review is, therefore, in all respects, Affirmed.…
-
Putman v. Putman, 154 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)…ied with the provisions of Rule 3.7f(3), Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A., in reference to stating “points involved, in a clear and concise manner”. See: Serotkin v. Flavin, Fla. App.1959, 111 So. 2d 483; Carrol v. Hertz Corporation, Fla.App.1961, 132 So. 2d 624.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Long v. Long, 99 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)