FRIEDA KARL AND JOHN KARL, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
DAVID RITTER, SPORTSERVICE, INC., AND DANIA FRONTON CORPORATION, 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 lower court's judgment for the defendants in a personal injury case, finding that the trial judge did not err in refusing two jury instructions on contributory negligence or in denying a motion for a new trial. The court held that the jury instructions, when read as a whole, adequately covered the issue, and that the plaintiffs had waived their right to object to the inclusion of contributory negligence by requesting instructions on it themselves.
No, the trial judge did not err. The court's instructions on contributory negligence, when read in their entirety, adequately covered the issue. Furthermore, the plaintiffs waived their right to object to the inclusion of contributory negligence by requesting instructions on it themselves.
“Instructions on the issue were included in the court's charge, which, when read in its entirety, reveals that the issue was adequately covered and the jury was not in any way misled.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for finding that the jury instructions on contributory negligence were sufficient.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiffs, Frieda and John Karl, brought a personal injury action against David Ritter, Sportservice, Inc., and Dania Fronton Corporation. The tr…
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 Contributory Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiffs appeal a final judgment for the defendants in an action for personal injury. The appellants urge first that the trial judge erred in refusing two of their requested instructions. Each instruction was upon the issue of contributory negligence. Instructions on the issue were included in the court’s charge, which, when read in its entirety, reveals that the issue was adequately covered and the jury was not in any way misled. Therefore, appellants are not entitled to a reversal on their first point. See Leake v. Watkins, 73 Fla. 596, 74 So. 652; H. I. Holding Company v. Dade County, Fla.App. 1961, 129 So.2d 693.
Upon appellants’ second point, it is urged that there were no facts before the jury to raise the issue of contributory negligence; therefore, the trial judge er*24roneously denied appellants’ motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. This point is also unavailing. Appellants requested instructions on the issue without first urging that it was improperly included in the court’s general charge. One may not assert error upon an action of the trial court in which he himself has acquiesced. Roe v. Henderson, 139 Fla. 386, 190 So. 618.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Park v. Belford Trucking Co., Inc., 165 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…s reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to reinstate the judgment of January 11, 1963. Reversed and remanded. . § 768.01, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. . § 45.11, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. . § 59.07(4), Fla.Stat., F.S.A. . Karl v. Ritter, Fla.App.1964, 164 So. 2d 23. . Rule 2.6(b), F.R.C.P., 31 F.S.A. . Berger v. Nathan, Fla.1953, 66 So. 2d 278; Butler v. Watts, Fla.App.1958, 103 So. 2d 123. . Segars v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, 286 F. 2d 767 (4th Cir.1961); Patten v. Newton, 102 N.H. 444, 159 A.…
-
Holmes v. The Sch. Bd. OF Orange Cnty., 301 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…lant’s position then that there was no point in proceeding to trial against an impecunious driver. One may not assert error upon an action of the trial court in which he himself has acquiesced. Karl v. David Ritter Sportservice, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 164 So. 2d 23, 24. Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed. CROSS, J., and VANN, HAROLD, Associate Judge, concur.…
-
Farr v. Rhoda Farr (Landis), 249 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…, no error has been demonstrated in this regard. Marx v. Withers, 119 Fla. 692, 160 So. 662; Moore v. Hendry, 126 Fla. 411, 171 So. 228; Marsh v. Sarasota County, Fla.App. 1957, 97 So. 2d 312; Karl v. David Ritter, Sportservice, Inc., Fla.App. 1964, 164 So. 2d 23. Lastly, the certified public accountant was the accountant for both parties and there was no error in the order requiring him to appear and testify regarding the financial affairs of the parties. [*763] Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- H. I. Holding Co. v. Dade Cnty., 129 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Roe v. Henderson, 139 Fla. 386 (Fla. 1939)
- Belle Leake v. Watkins, 73 Fla. 596 (Fla. 1917)