LUIS JOSE SALVADOR, APPELLANT,
v.
AIDA MUNOZ, APPELLEE
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 verdict in a personal injury case, holding that the plaintiff's testimony of ongoing pain and inability to work was sufficient to support a jury instruction on permanent injury, even without medical corroboration.
Yes, the plaintiff's testimony of continuing pain and inability to work was adequate to justify a jury instruction on permanency without medical corroboration.
“the trial judge-erred in failing to grant appellant a new trial because the court's instruction relative to the recoverability of damages for permanent injury was not predicated upon any evidence of permanent injury.”
This quote states the main argument presented by the appellant on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant appealed a final judgment entered after a jury verdict in a personal injury lawsuit. The primary argument on appeal was that the trial c…
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.
The defendant, Luis Jose Salvador,, appeals a final judgment based on a jury verdict in a personal injury case. The mam-thrust of the appeal is that the trial judge-erred in failing to grant appellant a new trial because the court’s instruction relative to the recoverability of damages for permanent injury was not predicated upon any evidence of permanent injury. We find' that plaintiff’s testimony of continuing pain and inability to work was adequate to-justify a charge on permanency without medical corroboration. Cf. William Penn-Hotel, Inc. v. Cohen, Fla.App.1958, 101 So.2d 404.
Appellant presents three other points directed to procedure at the trial of the cause. We find that these points-do not present reversible error. In particular, appellant’s point objecting to the striking of certain defenses because of his-failure to answer interrogatories does not present reversible error. The record reveals that the appellant not only did not object but actually acquiesced in the ruling and asserted its correctness before the trial court. See Fla.Stat.1965, § 59.07(1), F.S.A.; Howland v. Cates, Fla.1949, 43 So.2d 848, 851.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Klein v. Klein, 551 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…aving been completed, it was entirely too late in the day to object to this already completed procedure. See Bould v. Touchette, 349 So. 2d 1181, 1186 (Fla.1977); Volusia County v. Niles, 445 So. 2d 1043, 1048 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Salvador v. Munoz, 193 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). Appeal dismissed; certiorari not entertained.…
-
Gallub v. del Vecchio, 301 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…orida v. Galaxy Studios, Inc., Fla.App.1968, 216 So. 2d 75. The plaintiff’s own testimony respecting his permanent injury was suffi [*787] cient to justify a charge to the jury, which the court gave upon that issue. Salvador v. Munoz, Fla.App.1966, 193 So. 2d 442. The doctor who did appear as plaintiffs witness did not testify favorably to the plaintiff on the issue of permanent disability. The cause was fairly tried, and we cannot find any indication that the jury’s verdict was unsupported by the evidence.…
-
Corbett v. Dade Cnty. Bd. OF Pub. Instruction, 372 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…twice held that lay testimony of the continuing effects of an injury is sufficient to justify an instruction on permanent damages. Gallub v. Del Vecchio, 301 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 314 So. 2d 774 (Fla.1975); Salvador v. Munoz, 193 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); cf. Sullivan v. Price, 368 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Wages v. Snell, 360 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). These cases provide a fortiori authority for the granting of an instruction on future injuries in this case, which is…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Howland v. Cates, 43 So.2d 848 (Fla. 1949)
- William Penn Hotel, Inc. v. Barnett Cohen, 101 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)