IRENE LACA, APPELLANT,
v.
ETHEL M. STALKER, 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 court held that the trial judge did not err in giving jury instructions or denying motions for a new trial or directed verdict.
The case arose from an automobile accident where the plaintiff sued the defendant. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant.…
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 Motion For Directed Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, plaintiff below, is appealing from a final judgment and jury verdict in favor of appellee, defendant below. The case arose from an automobile accident.
On appeal the appellant has complained of certain jury instructions given by the trial judge. Considering the applicable case law, statutes and evidence presented, we believe that the trial judge did not err in giving the instructions in question. Furthermore, in light of the other instructions that were' given, even if the trial court did err in giving said instructions such error was harmless. See Florida Statutes Section 54.23, F.S.A.
The appellant also contends that the trial court should have granted either her motion for a new trial or her motion for a directed verdict. However, the jury, from the evidence presented at trial, could have reasonably believed that the appellant was guilty of contributory negligence. Thus, the trial judge did not err in denying appellant’s motions.
Affirmed.
LILES, C. J., and SHANNON and PIERCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Med. Ass'n, Inc. v. Dep't OF Prof'l Reg., 426 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…yne Bay Yacht Club, 521 F. 2d 344, 348 (5th Cir.1975): “.. . [I]t is unquestionable that standing may be based upon an interest created by the Constitution or a statute.” Despite the fact that the Second District, in Rush v. City of St. Petersburg, 205 So. 2d 11, 15 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1967), appeared to have some doubt on the question, it is now well settled in Florida that the right to practice medicine is a valuable property right protected by the due process clause. In State Board of Medical Examiners v. Roge…
-
Victor E. Spiro, D.D.S. v. Highlands Gen. Hosp., 489 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…statement. Further, the circuit court issued an order ruling that the Hospital acted properly when it prohibited Dr. Spiro from continuing his unlawful practice of general anesthesia. The circuit court found, based on Rush v. City of St. Petersburg, 205 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967), that the contract in question was illegal because it sanctions the unauthorized practice of medicine. Consequently, neither party breached the void contract and relative damages could not be obtained. The court also determined th…