CHARLES STILES, A MINOR, BY HENRY W. STILES, AS NEXT FRIEND, AND HENRY W. STILES, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
RICHARD S. CALVETTO, AND A. R. HORRELL, ALSO KNOWN AS A. R. HARRELL, 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 court held that the trial judge's jury instructions, when considered in their totality, did not constitute reversible error.
Plaintiffs sued for injuries to a minor pedestrian struck by a car owned by one defendant and driven by another. The jury returned a verdict for the d…
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
As the result of an action for damages brought by plaintiffs for injuries alleged to have been sustained by a minor pedestrian aged between 6 and 7 years, the jury returned a verdict for defendants. The accident occurred on a bridge between the town of Cocoa and Cocoa Beach, Brevard County, and the automobile by which the minor plaintiff was alleged to have been injured was owned by appellee Horrell and driven by appellee Calvetto.
There is no contention on appeal that the verdict is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence; the attack is instead directed against the trial judge’s refusal to give certain instructions to the jury and his giving of certain others. There are some charges protested by appellants to which no objections were interposed.
A single instruction to the jury need not necessarily contain all the law relating to the subject involved, but where instructions are protested on appeal, the totality of the instructions as given must be considered and not merely isolated portions. *18See Baston v. Shelton, 1943, 152 Fla. 879, 13 So.2d 453. Nor will an appellate court reverse the judgment resulting from the action below because of erroneous or incomplete charges which could not reasonably have been harmful. See Winthrop v. Carinhas, 1940, 142 Fla. 588, 195 So. 399, Tampa Electric Co. v. Jandreau, 1927, 93 Fla. 520, 112 So. 558.
After a careful scrutiny of the charges assaulted in connection with the overall instructions given, we do not find that reversible error has been committed. The cause is affirmed.
Affirmed.
ALLEN, Acting C. J., and KANNER and SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ashland OIL, Inc. v. Rod Pickard, 269 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…ith respect to the more substantial claim that the charges to the jury were incomplete, we express the view that in their totality the actual charges given impartially addressed the salient issues of the cause. See: Stiles v. Calvetto, Fla.App.1962, 137 So. 2d 17; Southeastern General [*723] Corporation v. Gorff, Fla.App.1966, 186 So. 2d 273; see also: Redwing Carriers, Inc. v. Urton, Fla. 1968, 207 So. 2d 273. The appellants contend that the compensatory damages for lost profits were based only upon specul…
-
Paddock v. BAY Concrete Indus., Inc., 154 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)…structions given must be considered and not merely isolated portions. Moreover, an appellate court will not reverse a judgment based on an erroneous or incomplete charge which could not reasonably have been harmful. Stiles v. Calvetto, Fla.App.1962, 137 So. 2d 17. [*319] Point seven, stating that the verdict was contrary to the evidence and the law, requiring new trial, needs no further comment in view of what we have already said. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Aff…
-
Williams v. Scott, 153 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)…arily will not reverse for denying certain instructions if the aggregate charges given are complete, correct and not likely to confuse or mislead the jury. Cf. Leonardi v. Walgreen Co., Fla.App.1962, 146 So. 2d 773; Stiles v. Calvetto, Fla.App.1962, 137 So. 2d 17. See also 3 Am.Jur., Appeal and Error, §§ 1096, 1097. In plaintiffs’ view of the evidence it is understandable that they should be offended by the jury’s verdict. As we see it, however, a valid verdict could have been returned either way — for or a…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Winthrop v. Carinhas, 142 Fla. 588 (Fla. 1940)
- Baston v. Shelton, 152 Fla. 879 (Fla. 1943)
- Tampa Elec. Co. v. Jandreau, 93 Fla. 520 (Fla. 1927)