JAMES T. BOOKER AND LETHA M. BOOKER, APPELLANTS,
v.
UDELIO LIMA AND MARY LIMA, 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 court affirmed the final judgment because there was sufficient, competent evidence to support the jury's verdict.
The plaintiff was a passenger in a car that collided with a vehicle owned by appellant Letha M. Booker and driven by James T. Booker in a shopping cen…
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 Vicarious Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
By this appeal, the defendants in the trial court seek review of an adverse final judgment rendered upon a jury verdict in a negligence action.
From the record on appeal, it appears that the plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile that collided with one owned by the appellant, Letha M. Booker, and driven by James T. Booker. The accident occurred when the two vehicles collided in the parking lot of a shopping center. The only point preserved for review on appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.
At this stage of the proceedings, all reasonable inferences are resolved in favor of the validity of the verdict. See: F. W. Woolworth Company v. Stevens, Fla.App.1963, 154 So.2d 201; LeJeune Road Hospital, Incorporated v. Watson, Fla.App. 1965, 171 So.2d 202; Busbee v. Quarrier, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 17. And, if there is any evidence to support same, it should be affirmed. See: Kowalczyk v. Brudder, Fla.App.1961, 134 So.2d 532; Prince Michael Corp. v. Zucker, Fla.App.1962, 147 So.2d 332; Miami Shores Village v. Lingler, Fla.App.1963, 157 So.2d 716. We have examined the record in light of these principles and find sufficient, competent evidence to support the jury’s finding and, therefore, we affirm the final judgment here under review.
At the time of oral argument, counsel for the appellant attempted to raise the question as to the vicarious liability of Letha M. Booker, in view of the fact that the accident in question did not happen on the public streets. We do not reach this question because same was not raised in the pleadings in accordance with § 51.12, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., was not assigned as error, nor urged by any point in the brief.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above the final judgment here under review is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Morgan, 213 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…man as he was running from the scene. Certain of these facts were in dispute but, at this stage of the proceedings, all conflicts in the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom are resolved in favor of the verdict. Booker v. Lima, Fla.App.1966, 182 So. 2d 642; Clark v. Wilder, Fla.App.1966, 192 So. 2d 32; North Shore Hospital, Inc. v. Luzi, Fla.App.1967, 194 So. 2d 63. Following appropriate post-trial motions, this appeal was perfected and the [*634] appellant has preserved four points for review: (1) T…
-
Movielab, Inc. v. Davis, 217 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…of the right to file this reply has not been assigned, as error nor preserved as a point on appeal. Therefore, the correctness of this ruling is not before this court. Williams v. Williams, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 488; Booker v. Lima, Fla.App.1966, 182 So. 2d 642; Snead v. LeJeune Road Hospital, Inc., Fla.App.1967, 196 So. 2d 179. It is noted that the attempted reply only sought to raise matters that went behind the judgment to the terms of the guaranty, which would not have been appropriate because the caus…
-
Bishop v. Wometco Enters., Inc., 235 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…on of Natural Resources in Pinellas County v. Furen, Fla.App.1960, 122 So. 2d 51; Central Bank and Trust Company v. Banner Trading Co., Fla.App. 1963, 157 So. 2d 201; Williams v. Williams, Fla.App. 1965, 172 So. 2d 488; Booker v. Lima, Fla.App.1966, 182 So. 2d 642; Rule 3.7, subd. i, F.A.R., 32 F.S.A. The appellant, as a paid professional employee of the City of Miami, brought himself into the public arena and [*761] subjected himself to criticism and fair comment, and the mere fact that certain portions of…
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
- F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Emily Ann Stevens and her husband, 154 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Busbee v. Quarrier, 172 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)
- Miami Shores Vill. v. Lingler, 157 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- LE Juene Rd. Hosp. v. Watson, 171 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Harris v. Hilderbrandt, 172 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Prince Michael Corp. v. Hulda Zucker, 147 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- City OF Vero Beach v. Holman, 134 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)