BESS AMBULANCE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
ANN BOLL AND HOWARD BOLL, HER HUSBAND, APPELLEES; ST. FRANCIS HOSPITAL, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, NOT FOR PROFIT, APPELLANT, V. ANN BOLL AND HOWARD BELL, HER HUSBAND, 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.
Bess Ambulance and St. Francis Hospital appeal a jury verdict awarding damages to Mrs. Boll for injuries sustained when she fell from a hospital cot while in a semi-conscious state. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence of negligence and rejecting challenges to the verdict amount and the trial court's refusal to instruct on contributory negligence.
The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that (1) sufficient evidence supported findings of negligence by both defendants; (2) the verdict amount did not shock the judicial conscience; and (3) the trial court properly refused a contributory negligence instruction because Mrs. Boll was in an unconscious or semi-conscious state and could not have contributed to her injury.
“Our review of the record convinces us there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that each appellant was guilty of negligence directly contributing to appellee's injury.”
Establishes the court's finding that both defendants had sufficient evidence of negligence against them.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMrs. Boll was transported by Bess Ambulance Service to St. Francis Hospital. While awaiting room assignment in the emergency area, she was placed on a…
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 Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants were defendants in the trial court. They appeal a final judgment for the plaintiffs which was entered upon a jury verdict. The judgment was against both defendants in the amount of $37,500 for the plaintiff-wife who was injured and $10,000 for the plaintiff-husband upon his derivative claim.
The appellee-wife was taken by the Bess Ambulance Service to St. Francis Hospital. Both the ambulance service and the hospital are appellants in this appeal. Mrs. Boll was placed upon a hospital cot in a room off the emergency entrance to await the assignment of a room. Appellee was not an emergency case although there is evidence that she was very ill, irrational or semi-conscious. She fell from the table and fractured her hip.
Each defendant, as appellant, has questioned the sufficiency of the evidence to support liability. Our review of the record convinces us there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that each appellant was guilty of negligence directly contributing to appellee’s injury. See Jackson v. Florida Weathermakers, Fla.1952, 55 So.2d 575; Davidow v. Seyfarth, Fla.1952, 58 So.2d 865.
Appellants also contend the amount of the verdict is so excessive that it shocks the judicial conscience. We find no reversible error presented on this point. See Roberts v. Bushore, Fla.App. 1966, 183 So.2d 708 on remand from reversal, Fla., 182 So. 2d 401.
The appellant-hospital presents a point directed to the court’s refusal of an instruction upon the claimed issue of contributory negligence. Contributory negligence was plead by the hospital and a general charge on the subject requested. The trial judge refused the charge because he found the evidence before the jury did not present an issue.
It is a well established rule that it is only necessary that there is some evidence tending to show negligence on the part of the plaintiff to make the question of *310contributory negligence one for the jury. Garris v. Robeison, Fla.App. 1962, 146 So.2d 388; Redwing Carriers, Inc. v. Helwig, Fla.App.1959, 108 So.2d 620. In the instant case the trial judge correctly found that the issue was not presented for the jury’s determination. This is true because all of the evidence before the jury was that the ap-pellee was in an unconscious or semi-conscious condition just prior to her fall. Under the facts of this case the only way the appellee could have contributed to her injury would have been to regain consciousness sufficiently to realize her condition and thereafter unbuckle the safety belt which was’ designed to prevent her from falling. We find there was no evidence from which the jury could have concluded that the appellee was guilty of contributory negligence. Foulk v. Perkins, Fla.App.1966, 181 So.2d 704.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Seibels v. Giddings, 264 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…tributory negligence, the matter should be submitted to a jury. Redwing Carriers, Inc. v. Helwig, Fla.App.1959, 108 So. 2d 620; Garris v. Robeison, Fla.App. 1962, 146 So. 2d 388; Musachia v. Rosman, supra; Bess Ambulance, Inc. v. Boll, Fla.App.1968, 208 So. 2d 308. Under the facts as above set forth, we find that the trial court erred in striking the defense of contributory negligence under the evidence as actually received. The propriety of failing to permit the responses by the experts will be hereinafter d…
-
Brooks v. Herndon Ambulance Serv., Inc., 475 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…rtaken to perform a duty to those who called upon it for emergency care, it was Herndon’s obligation to perform this duty in a non-negligent manner. See City of Hialeah v. Weatherford, 466 So. 2d 1127 (Fla.3d DCA 1985); Bess Ambulance, Inc. v. Boll, 208 So. 2d 308 (Fla.3d DCA 1968). The allegations of the complaint and the supporting evidence are sufficient to show the duty, the breach of the duty and the damages resulting from that breach. The allegation of negligent maintenance of its equipment should not h…
Authorities Cited
- Jackson v. Florida Weathermakers, 55 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1951)
- Garris v. Robeison, 146 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Roberts v. Bushore, 182 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 1966)
- Davidow v. Seyfarth, 58 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1952)
- Roberts v. Bushore, 183 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- Redwing Carriers, Inc. v. Helwig, 108 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Foulk v. Lottie D. Perkins, 181 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)