BI-COUNTY FUEL COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND DON LEROY EVORS, APPELLANTS,
v.
DOYLE CREWS, 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.
In this negligence action arising from an automobile accident, the jury awarded plaintiff Doyle Crews $13,500 in damages. Defendants Bi-County Fuel Company and Don Leroy Evors appealed, challenging both liability and the amount of damages as excessive given plaintiff's pre-existing back condition. The court affirmed the jury verdict, finding competent and substantial evidence to sustain it.
The court affirmed the jury verdict, finding competent and substantial evidence to sustain it and holding that most points raised on appeal were resolved by the jury verdict or lacked merit.
“We have carefully examined the record and the briefs of the parties and find that most of the points urged on appeal have been resolved by the verdict of the jury and that there was competent and substantial evidence to sustain such verdict.”
Establishes the court's standard of review and conclusion that the jury verdict was supported by competent evidence
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAt night, plaintiff Crews and defendant Evors were traveling in the same direction when Crews attempted a left turn and Evors' truck (owned by Bi-Coun…
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 Pre-Existing Condition cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by appellants Bi-County Fuel Company, a Florida corporation, and Don Leroy Evors, defendants in the court below, from a final judgment entered by the Hardee County Circuit Court pursuant to a jury verdict awarding damages to appellee Doyle Crews, plaintiff below, in a negligence action arising as a result of an automobile accident.
The testimony adduced at the trial is in conflict as to exactly how the accident occurred. It was at night and plaintiff and defendant Evors were traveling in the same direction. Plaintiff was apparently attempting to make a left turn and Evors, driving a truck owned by the defendant corporation, struck the rear of plaintiff’s car while attempting to pass. A jury awarded damages in the amount of $13,-500.00, and judgment was entered in such amount.
Although defendants contest liability, the main thrust of the appeal seems to be directed to the proposition that damages are excessive because plaintiff had a “pre-ex-isting condition”. We use the word “condition” advisedly because there is conflict in the testimony as to whether his existing back problems stemmed from “lifting a garbage can” or resulted from a birth defect. In any event, it is clear that he underwent surgery on his lower spine some five or six months prior to the accident here involved. The surgery was designed to fuse the vertebrae and was on “two levels”. At the time of the accident, one “level” had successfully fused and was healed. The other “level” had not healed and plaintiff was still undergoing treatment and wearing a brace. Defendants contend that there was not sufficient evidence to show that the accident was the proximate cause of the second vertebra “level” not to heal, resulting in the permanent disability.
We have carefully examined the record and the briefs of the parties and find that most of the points urged on appeal have been resolved by the verdict of the jury and that there was competent and substantial evidence to sustain such verdict. The points raised which were not essentially factual are without merit. We therefore affirm.
*237Our determination makes it unnecessary to pass upon appellee's pending motion to strike the reply brief of appellants and also an additional brief. Our examination of such briefs has not influenced our disposition of the case.
Affirmed.
LILES, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.