ALICE RUBY FOURNIER AND PAUL FOURNIER, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
MARIE A. LOTT AND LAWRENCE EVERETT LOTT, HER HUSBAND, 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 appellate court affirmed a jury verdict for the defendants in a negligence action. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing the trial court erred by not giving a jury instruction on non-imputable negligence, but the appellate court found no basis for such an instruction given the pleadings and evidence.
No, the trial court did not err. There was no basis in the pleadings or evidence to support a jury instruction on non-imputable negligence, as the case was presented solely on the theory of the defendants' negligence.
“While there is no question that a party is entitled to have appropriate instructions given to the jury, the particular instructions to be given depend upon the issues developed by the pleadings and supported by the evidence.”
Establishes the legal principle that jury instructions must align with the case's presented issues and evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiffs, Alice Ruby Fournier and her husband, sued the defendants for damages resulting from injuries Alice sustained when a motorcycle she was…
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.
Appellants, plaintiffs below, seek review of a judgment for the defendants entered pursuant to a jury verdict in a negligence action, wherein the appellants were seeking damages for injuries sustained by the appellant, Alice R. Fournier, when a motorcycle on which she was riding was involved in an accident with the appellees’ automobile.
The principal point raised by the appellants in the instant case is that the lower court erred in failing to give a certain jury instruction on non-imputable neg*886ligence. While there is no question that a party is entitled to have appropriate instructions given to the jury, the particular instructions to be given depend upon the issues developed by the pleadings and supported by the evidence. Garrison v. Hertz Corporation, Fla.App. 1961, 129 So.2d 452; Sirmons v. Pittman, Fla.App.1962, 138 So.2d 765; 32 Fla.Jur., Trial, § 141. In the instant case, there is no basis for this instruction as the plaintiffs’ complaint and evidence traveled on the sole negligence of the defendants. Therefore, the only question to be decided by the jury was whether or not the defendants were guilty of negligence proximately causing the accident. The jury determined this issue in favor of the defendants. The record on appeal contains substantial, competent evidence to sustain the jury’s verdict, and we therefore affirm the order of the lower court.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Giordano v. Nelson Ramirez, M.D., 503 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…f, 407 So. 2d 941, 943 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (same); Rodriguez v. Haller, 177 So. 2d 519, 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965) (court is not required to give instruction if court does not deem it full, fair and applicable to the facts of the case); Fournier v. Lott, 145 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962) (the particular instructions to be given depend upon the issues developed by the pleadings and supported by the evidence); see also Sears, 502 So. 2d at 942; Schreidell, 500 So. 2d at 231. Accordingly, we conclude that the instan…
-
Wooten v. Collins, 327 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…articular instruction as to the law applicable to and supported by the facts in evidence introduced under the issues as formed by the pleadings. Seaboard Air Line Railway Company v. Kay, 1917, 73 Fla. 554, 74 So. 523; Fournier v. Lott, Fla.App.1962, 145 So. 2d 885. In the instant case it affirmatively appears that a material issue of permanency was raised by the pleadings and evidence and, therefore, the court should have instructed the jury on the threshold requirements and the effect thereof to determine as…
-
Llompart v. Lavecchia, 374 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…ry not having been clearly presented to the jury and the jury having been fully and carefully instructed upon the law applicable to the case, the failure to give the instruction will not be grounds for reversal for a new trial. See Fournier v. Lott, 145 So. 2d 885 (Fla.3d DCA 1962), and cases cited therein. It must be remembered that the plaintiffs recovered a verdict at the hands of the jury. Thus, it is clear that the jury found a causal connection between the accident and some of Llompart’s injuries. Thus,…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sirmons v. Pittman, 138 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)
- Garrison v. HERTZ Corp., 129 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)