FLORIDA LIVING FOR THE RETIRED, D/B/A THE BLACKSTONE, APPELLANT,
v.
LILLIE KOLTNOW AND SAMUEL KOLTNOW, 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 evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of negligence, and therefore, a directed verdict was not warranted.
A guest in the appellant's retirement hotel sustained personal injuries allegedly due to the hotel's negligence in maintaining its floors. The jury re…
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 Duty To Maintain Premises In Reasonably Safe Condition cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, defendant below, seeks review of an adverse final judgment based upon a jury verdict in favor of the appel-lees in a negligence action.
The appellee wife, a guest in appellant’s retirement hotel, sustained personal injuries allegedly caused by appellant’s negligence in failing to maintain the floors of the subject premises in a reasonably safe condition. The appellant answered in the form of a general denial and pleaded contributory or sole negligence as an affirmative defense. Upon these issues, the cause was submitted to the jury which rendered a verdict in favor of the appellees.
The appellant’s sole contention is that the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict in its favor since the evidence as a whole was insufficient to support a finding that the appellant was guilty of negligence. We find this contention to be without merit.
The entire record has been carefully reviewed and considered and we find that this case was properly submitted to the jury,1 which had adequate basis for its conclusions. The verdict arrived here clothed with a presumption of regularity which we cannot disturb since, after viewing the case in its most favorable aspect toward the successful litigants, we are unable to say that the jury, as reasonable men, could not have found the verdict that they did. Bowser v. Harder, Fla.App.1957, 98 So.2d 752; Stegemann v. Hite, Fla.App.1957, 96 So. *5542d 595; Merchants’ Transport Co. v. Daniel, 109 Fla. 496, 149 So. 401; Parrish v. Clark, 107 Fla. 598, 145 So. 848.
Accordingly, the final judgment appealed is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Port O'Call INN, Inc. v. Morris, 206 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…ment for plaintiff. This appeal followed. The jury verdict and judgment entered thereon comes before us clothed with a presumption of correctness. Wrains v. Rose, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 75; Florida Living For The Retired v. Koltnow, Fla.App.1962, 143 So. 2d 553. The appellant has failed to point out any serious error on the part of the trial judge and thus has failed to overcome the presumption of correctness. The judgment is affirmed. ALLEN, Acting C. J., SHANNON, J., and KING, JAMES LAWRENCE, Associate…
-
Demeritte v. Sch. Bd. of Dade Cnty., 420 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…hat the relator should not continue in its employ and that there was no error in its order of dismissal. Shapiro v. State, 390 So. 2d 344 (Fla.1980); Damiano v. Weinstein, 355 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Florida Living For the Retired v. Koltnow, 143 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). Therefore the order of dismissal is affirmed. Affirmed. . Rule 9.040(c) Fla.R.App.P.…
-
Tuma v. The Sch. Bd. OF Dade Cnty., 698 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Newberry v. Florida Dept. of Law Enforcement, 585 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 3d [*877] DCA 1991); Florida, Living for the Retired v. Koltnow, 143 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962).…
Authorities Cited
- Merchs. Transp. Co. v. Daniel, 109 Fla. 496 (Fla. 1933)
- Hilkmeyer v. Latin Am. AIR Cargo Expediters, Inc., 94 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 1957)
- Katz v. Bear, 52 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 1951)
- Parrish v. Clark, 107 Fla. 598 (Fla. 1933)
- Bowser v. Harder, 98 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957)
- Burkett v. Belk-Lindsey Co. of Orlando, 137 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Otto C. Stegemann v. Hite, 96 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)