EMIL J. RAFFEL, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES G. MAGARIAN, 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 automobile collision case, the appellant obtained a summary judgment on liability but the jury awarded him zero dollars in damages. The court erred in entering judgment for the appellee and awarding costs to the appellee, when it should have entered judgment for the appellant with costs taxed against the appellee, despite the zero damage award.
The judgment must be reversed because the only proper judgment on the jury verdict was one in favor of the appellant, not the appellee. Costs should have been taxed against the appellee pursuant to Florida law, not in his favor. The court's jury instructions did not mislead the jury.
“The only judgment which the court could validly render on the verdict returned by the jury was one in favor of the appellant.”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that judgment must follow the jury verdict regardless of the damages awarded
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was involved in a rear-end automobile collision with the appellee. After pleadings established the issues, the trial court entered a sum…
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 New Trial On Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was the plaintiff below and appeals an adverse final judgment. The appellant was involved in a rear end automobile collision. After the issues were made by the pleadings, the liability of the appellee was established by the entry of a summary judgment in favor of the appellant. The cause went to trial before a jury on the issue of damages alone. At the conclusion of the trial, the court instructed the jury and furnished them with one verdict in which he directed that they should find for the appellant, and assess his damages for “none” dollars or such figure as they would deem appropriate. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the appellant but assessed his damgaes at “none” dollars. Upon this verdict the court entered the-judgment appealed and later entered a cost judgment in favor of the appellee.
On appeal, the appellant’s main contention is that the court erred in failing to grant him a new trial on the question of damages. Coupled with this contention is-the argument that the court should not have instructed the jury to enter the figure “none” or such figure they deemed appropriate in the verdict tendered to them at the conclusion of the trial.
On appellant’s main contention we conclude that this case is controlled by the principles announced in White v. Acher,. Fla.App.1963, 155 So.2d 176, and Shaw v. Puleo, Fla.1964, 159 So.2d 641. Further elaboration here is unnecessary.
We have read the instructions of the court to the jury and fail to find wherein the court’s remarks concerning the verdict were such as to mislead the jury or influence them in returning the verdict they did. The judgment, however, must be-reversed for other reasons.
The appellant was awarded a summary judgment as to liability against the-appellee and the jury returned a verdict in his favor although it failed to award any sum as damages. The only judgment which the court could validly render on the verdict returned by the jury was one in favor of the appellant. See Carroll v. Hertz Corporation, Fla.App.1961, 132 So.2d 624, and Jordan v. Reynolds, Fla.App.1963, 154 So.2d 200.
Inasmuch as a judgment in favor of the appellant should have been rendered on the *251verdict, it follows that costs should have been taxed against the appellee. See § 58.04, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.; Jordan v. Reynolds, supra; and Ossinsky v. Nance, Fla.App.1960, 118 So.2d 47.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed is reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions to enter judgment upon the jury verdict for appellant as well as costs for such sums as the court shall find are legally taxable.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sunshine Bottling Co. v. Tropicana Prods., Inc., 757 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…ver its costs. See The Green Companies, Inc. v. Kendall Racquetball Investment, Ltd., 658 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Upson v. Hazelrig, 444 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Blue v. Williams, 200 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967); Raffel v. Magarian, 165 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). However, we find Sunshine is not entitled to attorneys’ fees because nothing in the parties’ agreement provides for prevailing party attorneys’ fees in the event of litigation between the parties. The contract does contain an in…
-
Matthias J. Propst v. John A. Neily, D.O., 467 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…distinguish both. In Blue v. Williams, 200 So. 2d 626, 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967), the jury found “for the Plaintiff ... and assessed] his damages in the sum of zero ... Dollars.” The Propst jury made no such finding of liability. In Raffel v. Magarian, 165 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964), a summary judgment for plaintiff on the issue of liability was followed by a jury verdict of zero damages. Plaintiff was entitled to costs by virtue of the judgment on liability. Again there is no parallel in the present case. Ne…
-
Josie Mae Upson v. Hazelrig, 444 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…awards the plaintiff no damages for the claimed injuries to his person and property, the plaintiff is nevertheless the sole party [*1128] entitled to recover judgment and thus costs under Section 57.041, Florida Statutes (1983), Raffel v. Magarian, 165 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). A fortiori, where, as here, the trial court entered an unappealed judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the plaintiff in the undisputed amount of the property damage to the plaintiffs automobile, the plaintiff is the “party re…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Shaw v. Puleo, 159 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1964)
- White v. Acker, 155 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)
- Pan-American Life Ins. Co. v. Lorido, 154 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Ossinsky v. Dayton Nance, 118 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- Nettie Pearl Carroll v. HERTZ Corp., 132 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)