WALTER R. BUFFETT AND LILLY S. BUFFETT, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
MARY T. GELDHAUSER, 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 negligence case arising from an automobile accident, the trial court instructed the jury that a verdict for the husband-driver required a verdict for the wife, but a verdict for the wife did not require a verdict for the husband. The jury returned a verdict for the wife alone, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that this verdict implicitly constituted a finding for the defendant on the husband's claim.
The court held that under the circumstances, the verdict for the plaintiff-wife and the refusal to enter a verdict for the plaintiff-husband constituted a finding for the defendant upon the husband's claim. A verdict is sufficient to sustain a judgment when the intent of the jury is apparent, and silence as to one party where verdicts are available constitutes a finding in favor of that party.
“the law of this State is well settled that when the intent of the jury is apparent, their verdict will be sufficient to sustain a judgment entered in conformity with the intent of the verdict”
Establishes the standard for evaluating jury verdicts in Florida—intent of the jury, not formal perfection of the verdict form, controls.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHusband and wife brought a personal injury action arising from an automobile accident. The husband was the driver of the vehicle in which both were in…
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 Jury Verdict Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiffs, husband and wife, brought an action for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident. The evidence reveals a basis for a finding of contributory negligence on part of the plaintiff-husband, the driver of the automobile in which he and his wife were riding when they were injured. Without objection of counsel, three forms of verdict were given to the jury: (1) for the plaintiff-wife; (2) for the plaintiff-husband, and (3) for the defendant. The jury returned with a verdict for the plaintiff-husband, and they were advised by the judge that such a verdict was improper because a finding for the husband required a verdict for the wife. In further instructing the jury, the court stated, “You could return a verdict under the charge for the wife and not for the husband, but if you returned a verdict for the husband, you must return a verdict for the wife.” No objection was voiced to this charge.
The court further repeated its entire instruction upon the effect of a finding of contributory negligence oh the part of the husband. The jury then retired and returned a verdict for the wife alone. No verdict as to the husband was returned. The court ■ entered judgment for the wife on her claim and for the defendant on the husband’s claim. A motion for a new trial on behalf of both plaintiffs was denied and this appeal, followed.
*845The law of this State is well settled that when the intent of the jury is apparent, their verdict will be sufficient to sustain a judgment entered in conformity with the intent of the verdict. See Marianna Mfg. Co. v. Boone, 55 Fla. 289, 45 So. 754; Higbee v. Dorigo, Fla.1953, 66 So.2d 684.
Similarly, it has been held that where there are two parties defendant in an action and the jury finds a verdict against one and is silent as to the other, such a verdict will be treated as a finding in favor of the defendant not named. Bickelhaupt v. Inland Motor Freight, 191 Wash. 467, 71 P.2d 403 (1937).
We hold that under the circumstances of this case, the trial court correctly held that the verdict for the plaintiff-wife and the refusal to enter a verdict for the plaintiff-husband was a finding for the defendant upon the husband's claim.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Phillips v. Ostrer, 481 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…s, 257 So. 2d 36 (Fla.1971). When the intent of the jury is apparent, the verdict will sustain a judgment entered in conformity with that intent. Cory; Adkins v. Seaboard Coastline Railroad, 351 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Buffett v. Geldhauser, 155 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). The determination of the amount of damages is a matter solely within the province of the jury. Jefferson Realty v. United States Rubber Co., 222 So. 2d 738 (Fla.1969); South Miami Hospital v. Sanchez, 386 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 3d DCA 1…
-
Cory v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 257 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 1971)…ue made by the pleading. Wismer v. Alyea, 103 Fla. 1102, 138 So. 763 (1932). When the intent of the jury is apparent, their verdict will be sufficient to sustain a judgment entered in conformity with the intent of the verdict. Buffett v. Geldhauser, 155 So. 2d 844 (Fla.App.3d, 1963). Accord: 25 F.L.P., Verdict, § 5; 53 Am.Jur., Trial, § 1094; 89 C.J.S., Trial, § 515. See also Channell v. State, 107 So. 2d 284 (Fla.App.2d, 1958), a criminal case, where the Court said that any words which impart beyond a reason…
-
Hauser Motor Co., Inc. v. Byrd, 377 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…l court erred in granting a new trial as to Karl Hauser individually. No verdict was returned against this defendant and the law clearly appears to be that under the circumstances shown in the record he was thereby exonerated. Buffett v. Geldhauser, 155 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963); Marianna Mfg. Co. v. Boone, 55 Fla. 289, 45 So. 754 (1908). There is no basis in the record for overturning that finding. Accordingly, the order granting the motion for new trial is affirmed as to the defendant Hauser Motor Comp…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Higbee et ux. v. Dorigo, 66 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 1953)
- Marianna Mfg. Co. v. Boone, 55 Fla. 289 (Fla. 1908)