WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
MADELINE MARION SMITH, EDWARD JAMES SMITH, AND MADELINE M. SMITH, A MINOR, BY EDWARD JAMES SMITH, HER FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, 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 jury's verdict, finding that the evidence presented was sufficient to establish negligence and that the jury's award was not excessive. The court determined that the issues were factual and properly resolved by the jury.
The court held that the issues of negligence, contributory negligence, and the excessiveness of the jury's award were factual matters properly submitted to and resolved by the jury. Therefore, no reversible error was demonstrated.
“The primary points involved on the appeal question the sufficiency of the evidence to establish appellant's negligence and to establish appellees' contributory negligence as a matter of law.”
This quote outlines the main legal questions presented to the appellate court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involves an appeal by Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. concerning a jury's verdict in favor of Madeline Marion Smith and others. The appeal raised que…
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 Excessive Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause has been orally argued before the court and the briefs and record on appeal have been read and given full consideration. The primary points involved on the appeal question the sufficiency of the evidence to establish appellant’s negligence and to establish appellees’ contributory negligence as a matter of law. Also involved is an attack on the jury’s award upon the ground of excessiveness. It is our view that these questions are factual in nature and were properly submitted to and resolved by the jury. Appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment appealed is hereby affirmed. See Isenberg v. Ortona Park Recreational Center, Inc. (Fla.App.1964), 160 So.2d 132, cert. den. Fla.1964, 170 So.2d 589; McDermott v. Engstrom (Fla.1955), 81 So.2d 553; City of Jacksonville v. Stokes (Fla.1954), 74 So.2d 278.
RAWLS, C. J., and WIGGINTON and CARROLL, DONALD K„ JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- City of Jacksonville v. Stokes, 74 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1954)
- Isenberg v. Ortona Park Recreational Ctr., Inc., 160 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- McDERMOTT v. Alf C. Engstrom and Florence Engstrom, 81 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1955)
- Raby v. Sugar Cane Growers Coop., 170 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 1964)