WILLIAM A. CROSBY, APPELLANT,
v.
RAY W. STUBBLEBINE, 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.
In this automobile negligence case, the appellant challenged a jury instruction given by the trial court and the refusal to give two requested instructions, claiming they were prejudicial. The appellate court affirmed the judgment because the record on appeal did not contain the trial testimony, making it impossible to properly review whether the jury instructions constituted reversible error.
The court affirmed the trial court's judgment because the record on appeal did not contain the trial testimony, which is essential for determining whether jury instructions constitute reversible error. The appellate court could not conclude that reversible error existed without the evidence that was presented to the jury.
“Generally, all instructions given by a trial court should be considered in the light of the evidence before reversible error can be ascertained, and if the jury does not appear to have been misled or confused, and no other prejudice or harm has resulted, the judgment must be affirmed.”
Establishes the standard for reviewing jury instructions on appeal and requires consideration of evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis was an automobile negligence action in which the jury returned a verdict for the defendant (appellee). The appellant challenged specific jury ins…
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 Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant-plaintiff has perfected this appeal from a judgment entered pursuant to jury verdict for the appellee-defendant in an automobile negligence action. Errors are asserted to have been committed by the trial judge through the giving of a jury instruction at the instance of appellee, said by appellant to have been prejudicial to him, and through failure to give two charges requested by the appellant.
It is urged by appellee that there is no adequate record before this court to substantiate a determination that the trial court committed the claimed prejudicial errors. With this we must agree. The record' on appeal submitted to this court by appellant does not contain the testimony presented to the jury. That procedural omission is fatal to this particular appeal.
Generally, all instructions given by a trial court should be considered in the light of the evidence before reversible error can be ascertained, and if the jury does not appear to have been misled or confused, and no other prejudice or harm has resulted, the judgment must be affirmed. Winthrop v. Carinhas, 1940, 142 Fla. 588, 195 So. 399. In testing assignments of error based on the giving of instructions, an appellate court will interpret the charges with-reference to the evidence and pleadings. Winfield v. Truitt, 1916, 71 Fla. 38, 70 So. 775. Whether an instruction is erroneous should be determined by considering it in connection with all other instructions, pleadings, and evidence. Staicer v. Hall, Fla.App.1961, 130 So.2d 113. The same test should be applied in deciding whether a requested charge was erroneously refused by the court. Stanley v. State, 1927, 93 Fla. 372, 112 So. 73.
This court, therefore, cannot conclude that reversible error here exists, since the testimony elicited below, which has not been placed before this court through the record on appeal, may have been of such a nature as to render harmless any errors that might have been committed in connec-; tion with the jury instructions involved in this appeal. Accordingly, judgment of the trial court must be affirmed.
Affirmed.
SHANNON, C. J., and KANNER and SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Gallagher v. Fed. Ins. Co., 346 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…ould generally be given in a liability trial, we are unable to conclude on the incomplete record before us, that the jurors were, in fact, misled, or that the failure to so instruct otherwise resulted in prejudicial error. See Crosby v. Stubblebine, 142 So. 2d 358 (Fla.2d DCA 1962), and Castaldo v. Singapore, J. F. Inc., 258 So. 2d 499 (Fla.3d DCA 1972). Moreover, based on the verdict form presented to the jury containing the special interrogatories, recited above, we find that the jury did have the opportun…
-
Menard v. O'Malley, 327 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…a verdict, where it is conformable to the law and the facts, merely because the trial court refused to give instructions that might properly be given. Maistrosky v. Harvey, Fla.App.1961, 133 So. 2d 103. See also Crosby v. Stubblebine, Fla.App.1962, 142 So. 2d 358, and Gavin v. Headley, Fla.App.1973, 272 So. 2d 843. Nevertheless, it must be recognized that a party is entitled to have the jury instructed upon his theory of the case when the evidence viewed in a light favorable thereto substantially supports th…
-
Sinclair Ref. Co. v. Butler, 172 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…fused] this should be determined by considering it in connection with all other instructions, pleadings and evidence [see: Stanley v. State, 93 Fla. 372, 112 So. 73; Staicer v. Hall, Fla.App.1961, 130 So. 2d 113; Crosby v. Stubblebine, Fla.App.1962, 142 So. 2d 358], and an appellate court will not reverse the trial court if the aggregate charges given are complete, correct, and not likely to confuse' or mislead the jury. See: Leonardi v. Walgreen Co., Fla.App.1962, 146 So. 2d 773; Williams v. Scott, Fla.App.1…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Stanley v. State, 93 Fla. 372 (Fla. 1927)
- Winthrop v. Carinhas, 142 Fla. 588 (Fla. 1940)
- Staicer v. Hall, 130 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Winfield v. Truitt, 71 Fla. 38 (Fla. 1916)