REDWING CARRIERS, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
LILLIAN URTON, RESPONDENT
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 an appellate court erred in reversing a judgment based on a jury instruction issue when the party did not properly request a specific instruction or object to the general charge on that point.
The appellate court reversed a jury verdict for the defendant in a negligence action, finding reversible error in the failure to instruct the jury on …
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 Range Of Vision Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellate court in this case1 reversed a judgment entered on a verdict for defendant in a negligence action. The court, in an opinion containing a full statement of the facts and point of law in question, concluded that reversible error was committed by failure to instruct the jury on the “range of vision” rule, although plaintiff did not submit a proper charge on the point. Certi-orari has been granted on the ground of conflict with the decision in Jayess Investments Ltd. v. Barbee Foods, Inc.2 that our rules of practice “require a party to request a proper instruction in order to claim error for the failure to instruct.”
While we recognize the propriety in some circumstances of a review of the sufficiency of instructions in the light of specific issues developed by the evidence, and the independent duty of a trial court in this regard,3 we believe from a study of the record in this cause that the judgment should have been affirmed. Objections by plaintiff at the conclusion of the framing of the charges were directed solely to the court’s rejection of plaintiff’s “submitted instruction,” and assignments of error on appeal were equally limited. In this situation we think the appellate court erred in reversing on the ground that the general charge was fatally defective for lack of specific explanation of the rule in question.
The decision on this point is accordingly quashed and the cause remanded with directions that the judgment be affirmed.
CALDWELL, C. J., and THORNAL, ERVIN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ashland OIL, Inc. v. Rod Pickard, 269 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…given impartially addressed the salient issues of the cause. See: Stiles v. Calvetto, Fla.App.1962, 137 So. 2d 17; Southeastern General [*723] Corporation v. Gorff, Fla.App.1966, 186 So. 2d 273; see also: Redwing Carriers, Inc. v. Urton, Fla. 1968, 207 So. 2d 273. The appellants contend that the compensatory damages for lost profits were based only upon speculative evidence, particularly where plaintiffs conducted a new business. We reject these claims, but for clarity begin the discussion of this issue wit…
-
Lucius Bonner McLEOD, Jr. v. Young, 257 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)…ould equally speculate that counsel chose to focus their whole power upon total non-liability rather than upon the mitigating feature of the charge in question, which smacks of confession and avoidance. In Redwing Carriers, Inc. v. Urton, Fla.1968, 207 So. 2d 273, Justice Drew for the Supreme Court in effect provided that the failure of the trial court to instruct the jury on “Range of Vision” rule, where plaintiff did not submit a proper charge or later object on the point, was not error. In Norman v. Mulli…
-
Frazier v. Ross, 225 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)…ange of vision rule is not a rule of law, Lientz v. Holder, Fla. 1957, 95 So. 2d 505, and is not the proper subject of a jury instruction. See Urton v. Redwing Carriers, Inc., Fla.App.1967, 200 So. 2d 859; Redwing Carriers, Inc., v. Urton, Fla.1968, 207 So. 2d 273; and committee comment under Florida Standard Jury Instructions 4.13. For the court to give such an instruction is tantamount to an interference with the jury’s authority to determine whether under all the circumstances due care has been exercised.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re the use by the trial courts of the Standard Jury Instructions, 198 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 1967)
- Jayess Invs. Ltd. v. Barbee Foods, Inc., 155 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Urton v. Redwing Carrier, Inc., 200 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)