ROBERT L. SHARPSTEEN, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, LESLIE SHARPSTEEN, AND LESLIE SHARPSTEEN, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
KARL L. KEESLER AND RANDOLPH W. KEESLER, A MINOR, 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 an appeal from a jury verdict in a negligence action. The appellants, plaintiffs in the lower court, challenged the trial court's jury instructions. However, because no objections were properly preserved according to court rules, the appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision.
The appellate court held that the jury instructions were not properly preserved for review because no objections were made in accordance with the relevant court rule. Therefore, the jury's verdict and the resulting judgment were affirmed.
“The only point preserved for review by the appellants is the propriety of certain instructions given by the trial court.”
This quote establishes the sole issue presented to the appellate court.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellants, Robert L. Sharpsteen (a minor) and his father Leslie Sharpsteen, sued the appellees, Karl L. Keesler and Randolph W. Keesler, for negl…
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 Negligence Action cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal involves a negligence action, wherein the appellants-plaintiffs brought an action against the appellees as defendants, as a result of an intersection collision, wherein the appellant, Robert L. Sharp-steen, was a passenger on a motor scooter driven by a third person, not a party to this proceeding. A jury verdict was returned in favor of the defendants.
The only point preserved for review by the appellants is the propriety of certain instructions given by the trial court. No objections to these instructions were made in accordance with.Rule.2.6, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 31 F.S.A. and, therefore, it appears that the final judgment rendered on the jury verdict should be affirmed on the authority of Joe Reinertson, Inc. v. Nelson, Fla.App.1964, 160 So.2d 723; Karl v. David Ritter Sportservice, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 164 So.2d 23; Henningsen v. Smith, Fla.App.1965, 174 So.2d 85.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
K-Mart Corp. v. Gordon, 565 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…d 693 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961), cert. denied, 133 So. 2d 646 (Fla.1961); Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla.1978); Lassitter v. International Union of Operating Engineers, 349 So. 2d 622 (Fla.1976); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.470(b); Sharpsteen v. Keesler, 178 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); see also Browning-Ferris Indus, v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U.S. -, 109 [*835] S.Ct. 2909, 106 L.Ed.2d 219 (1989); Davis v. State, 383 So. 2d 620 (Fla.1980).…
-
The Wackenhut Corp. v. Carmeline Greene, 238 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…trial court on the question of its vicarious liability for the intentional torts of its employees. We do not believe that the defendant properly preserved this point for appeal. See Rule 1.470(b), RCP, 30 F.S.A. Sharpsteen v. Keesler, Fla.App.1965, 178 So. 2d 623; Henningsen v. Smith, Fla.App.1965, 174 So. 2d 85; and Karp v. Hodor, Fla.App. 1964, 166 So. 2d 597. Assuming arguendo that the point was properly preserved for consideration on appeal we note that the charge given was similar to charge 3.3b of the…
-
Hoban v. Gerlando Constantino, 240 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Sharpsteen v. Keesler, Fla.App.1965, 178 So. 2d 623; Henningsen v. Smith, Fla.App.1965, 174 So. 2d 85; Eicholz v. Frey, Fla.App.1965, 173 So. 2d 771; and Rule 1.470(b), R.C.P., 30 F.S.A.…
Authorities Cited
- Henningsen v. Smith, 174 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Frieda Karl and John Karl v. Ritter, 164 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- JOE Reinertson, Inc. v. Nelson, 160 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)