NANCY GUTHRIE, APPELLANT,
v.
VICTOR MAGNOS SOLMS AND FLORIDA LIVING FOR THE RETIRED, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, 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.
This case involves a plaintiff appealing a jury verdict for damages from an automobile accident, arguing the award was inadequate. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no error in the denial of a new trial.
No, the trial court did not err in denying the motion for a new trial because the evidence regarding the severity of the injuries was conflicting, and the verdict was not demonstrably inadequate.
“The evidence relating to the severity of the collision and the resultant injuries was not without conflict.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for upholding the denial of a new trial, emphasizing the conflicting evidence presented at trial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff sued for personal and property damages after an automobile accident. A jury awarded her $1,064, which was slightly more than her documen…
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 Improper Argument cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was the plaintiff in an action for damages for injury to her person and property resulting from an automobile accident. A jury trial resulted in a verdict in her favor for $1,064 which was about $100 more than her out-of-pocket expenses. Her motion for new trial was denied, judgment was entered, and she has appealed.
The appellant presents four points, the first of which is a contention that the trial court erred in denying her motion for new trial on the ground of inadequacy of the verdict. The evidence relating to the severity of the collision and the resultant injuries was not without conflict. We uphold the trial judge’s ruling on the authority of Glasser v. Leary, Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 683. There was evidence of earlier injury. Compare Scott v. Andrews, Fla.App.1962, 140 So.2d 128.
The other contentions, relating to rulings on evidence and claimed improper argument, we find to be without merit.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Scott v. Andrews, 140 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Glasser v. Leary, 67 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 1953)