PAUL E. ROBERTS, APPELLANT,
v.
DONALD E. BUSHORE, JR., ET UX., 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.
Appellant Roberts appealed a jury verdict awarding him $500 in damages for injuries sustained in a negligence action, arguing the award was grossly inadequate. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that it was bound by prior Florida Supreme Court decisions rejecting arguments about inadequate jury verdicts in similar cases.
The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that it was bound by prior Florida Supreme Court decisions that had rejected similar arguments about inadequate verdicts in comparable cases, and therefore could not agree with the appellant's contentions that the verdict was inadequate.
“It therefore affirmatively appears that the principles of law urged by the appellant as grounds for reversal of the decision of which he complains collides with the law of the land as enunciated by our Supreme Court in the three decisions above cited.”
The court explains why it cannot reverse despite finding the appellant's arguments persuasive—they conflict with binding Supreme Court precedent.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoberts was struck by an automobile negligently operated by Bushore. As a result of the injuries, Roberts was hospitalized for approximately six weeks…
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 Inadequate Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff has appealed a final judgment entered upon a jury verdict awarding him damages for injuries sustained as a result of being struck by an automobile negligently operated by one of the appellees. Appellant contends that the damages awarded him by the jury are grossly inadequate, and the trial judge abused his discretion in entering judgment on the verdict and denying his motion for new trial.
The evidence reveals without dispute that as a result of the injuries sustained by appellant he was hospitalized for a period of approximately six weeks; underwent one operation and will be subjected to another *854before lie is completely recovered; and, suffers a permanent partial disability to his left hand and arm. For his pain, suffering, and permanent partial disability appellant was awarded damages in the sum of $500.00. It is his position that the inadequate verdict resulted from the jury laboring under some misconception of the law or evidence, or in refusing to consider all of the elements of damages involved, or because it missed a consideration of the issues submitted or failed to discharge its duty as given by the court’s charge.
In two separate cases involving facts similar in all material respects to those in the case sub judice we agreed with the theories, principles and reasons now advanced by appellant in support of his position, and rendered decisions reversing judgments entered in personal injury actions on the ground that the verdicts were inadequate.1 In each case the Supreme Court reviewed and quashed our decisions, and directed that the judgments entered by the trial courts be reinstated.2 Similarly, the Third District Court of Appeal rendered a decision in a case factually identical to the one sub judice. By its opinion that court likewise agreed with the theories and reasons advanced by appellant to demonstrate the inadequacy of the verdict rendered in that case, and entered its judgment of reversal.3 That decision met a similar fate when reviewed by our Supreme Court on certiorari resulting in a decision of quashal with directions that the trial court judgment be reinstated.4 It therefore affirmatively appears that the principles of law urged by the appellant as grounds for reversal of the decision of which he complains collides with the law of the land as enunciated by our Supreme Court in the three decisions above cited. Under the circumstances we are not authorized to agree with the contentions advanced by appellant, and must therefore reject them.
We have carefully considered the remaining points presented for our consideration, but find them to be without substantial merit.
The judgment appealed is accordingly affirmed.
CARROLL, DONALD, and RAWLS, JJ-, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Griffis v. Hill, 230 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 1969)…DKINS, JJ., concur. THORNAL, J., agrees to conclusion. CARLTON, T., dissents. . 217 So. 2d 358 (Fla.App.1st 1968). . Shaw v. Puleo, 159 So. 2d 641 (Fla.1964). . City of Miami v. Smith, 165 So. 2d 748 (Fla.1964). . 127 So. 2d 441 (Fla.1961). . 172 So. 2d 853 (Fla.App.1st 1965). . 166 So. 2d 146 (Fla.1964). . 182 So. 2d 401, 402 (Fla.1966). . 183 So. 2d 708, 711 (Fla.App.1st 1966).…
-
Roberts v. Bushore, 182 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 1966)…PER CURIAM. We are asked to review by writ of certio-rari the decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, in Roberts v. Bushore, 172 So. 2d 853 (Fla.App.1st, 1965). The facts of this case are succinctly stated in the opinion of the District Court and require no elaboration. It will be noted from the opinion that the District Court refused to disturb the verdict because of the results reach…
-
Grossman v. Short, 235 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…w trial in this case on the issue of damages. Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded to the circuit court with directions to grant a new trial on damages. It is so ordered. . Roberts v. Bushore, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 853. . Shaw v. Puleo, Fla.1964, 159 So. 2d 641; Hayes v. Hatchell, Fla.1964, 166 So. 2d 146; City of Miami v. Smith, Fla.1964, 165 So. 2d 748.…
Previewing 3 of 5 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)
- Hatchell v. Hayes, 157 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)
- Hayes v. Hatchell, 166 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 1964)
- Smith v. City OF Miami, 153 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Puleo v. Shaw, 149 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)