ROSA KAUFMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
ADELE RUBIN ET AL., D/B/A VERSAILLES HOTEL, 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 trial court's judgment for the hotel after a plaintiff's fall, finding no prejudicial error despite alleged procedural issues. The court emphasized that the trial was fully conducted and the plaintiff presented her case, and no miscarriage of justice was evident.
No, the appellate court found that no prejudicial error was demonstrated. The trial was fully conducted, and the appellant was able to present all her contentions to the jury.
“We do not determine whether the points present error because it is conclusively apparent from the record that no prejudicial error has been shown.”
This quote establishes the court's primary reason for affirming the lower court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, Rosa Kaufman, sued the owners of the Versailles Hotel after falling in their establishment. A jury returned a verdict against her. She …
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 Miscarriage Of Justice cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, who was the plaintiff in the trial court and suffered an adverse jury verdict in an action for a fall in ap-pellee’s hotel, presents two points. Each point alleges a procedural error.
We do not determine whether the points present error because it is conclusively apparent from the record that no prejudicial error has been shown. The cause was fully tried, and the appellant was able to present to the jury each contention that she puts forward in the case. Therefore, this judgment is affirmed pursuant to the rule that an appellate court will not reverse a judgment based on substantial evi*285dence where the record does not reveal that the errors resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Symmes v. Prairie Pebble Phosphate Co., 69 Fla. 4, 67 So. 228 (1915); Victor Hotel Owners v. Sperling, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 120.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Siddons v. Robert F. Siddons for the Estate, 297 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…ch is based on substantial competent evidence, unless from the record it affirmatively appears that any error committed affected the substantial rights of a complaining party and resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Kaufman v. Rubin, Fla.App. 1966, 183 So. 2d 284; Demmy v. Sligh, Fla.App.1966, 189 So. 2d 843; Anthony v. Douglas, Fla.App. 1967, 201 So. 2d 917. Our review of the record convinces us that the probate court conducted a full and a fair hearing, and the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of…
-
Kiou Jalayer v. Perlman, 442 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…of seventy percent (70%) comparative negligence was amply justified by the evidence. The plaintiff received a fair trial, although not a perfect one, and we are therefore required under the law to affirm the judgment appealed from. Kaufman v. Rubin, 183 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); § 59.041, Fla.Stat. (1981). Affirmed.…
-
Presley v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 453 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Kaufman v. Rubin, 183 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). RYDER, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and LEHAN, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Victor Hotel Owners, Inc. v. Sperling, 104 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Arsenault v. Thomas, 104 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Symmes v. Prairie Pebble Phosphate Co., 69 Fla. 4 (Fla. 1915)