CITY OF HIALEAH, A MUNICIPALITY, AND O. HARRIS, APPELLANTS,
v.
JAMES HUTCHINS, 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 damages-only jury trial following prior appellate decisions on liability, the City of Hialeah and O. Harris appealed a verdict for James Hutchins, challenging the admission of medical testimony, exclusion of certain witnesses, and the damage award. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no error in the evidentiary rulings or the jury's verdict.
The court affirmed the judgment, finding no merit in any of the appellants' contentions. The physician's testimony was properly admitted because he was a treating physician as well as an examining physician. The claim regarding excluded witnesses was refuted by the record. The verdict was supported by substantial, competent evidence and was not so excessive as to shock the judicial conscience.
“it is not the function of an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of a jury, but only to determine if the verdict is supported by substantial, competent evidence”
Establishes the appellate standard of review for jury verdicts, limiting appellate courts to determining whether substantial evidence supports the verdict rather than reweighing evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case had been litigated through multiple prior appellate decisions. Following the most recent appellate decision, the matter returned to trial co…
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 Jury Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
This case has been before the appellate courts of this State on several previous occasions. See: Hutchins v. City of Hialeah, Fla.App.1963, 153 So.2d 864; City of Hialeah v. Hutchings, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 607; City of Hialeah v. Hutchins, Fla.App.1966, 189 So.2d 165; Hutchins v. City of Hialeah, Fla.1967, 196 So.2d 741.
Following the decision in the last cause and return to the trial court, the matter came on to be heard before a jury solely on the question of damages. Subsequent to the rendition of a verdict in favor of the appellee, the appellant prosecuted this appeal and has preserved three points for review: (1) That the court erred in allowing an examining physician to testify as to the alleged causes of the injury; (2) That the court erred in preventing the testimony of certain witnesses; (3) That the verdict was excessive and the court erred in denying a new trial on this ground. We find no merit in any of the contentions urged by the appellant, and affirm.
As to the first point, the doctor in question was consulted by the patient following a referral to him as a specialist from his own treating physician, and he was a treating physician as well as an examining physician. Therefore, we find no merit in this contention, on the authority of Tampa Transit Lines, Inv. v. Smith, Fla. App.1963, 155 So.2d 557; Raydel, Ltd. v. Medcalfe, Fla.App.1964, 162 So.2d 910.
As to the second point, we find this not to be well taken; the record refutes this claim.
As to the third point, it is not the function of an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of a jury, but only to determine if the verdict is supported by substantial, competent evidence. Wise v. Jacksonville Gas Corporation, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 704; Little River Bank and Trust Co. v. Magoffin, Fla.1958, 100 So.2d 626; Sinclair Refining Co. v. Butler, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 499; Pensacola Greyhound Racing, Inc. v. Williams, Fla.App.1967, 193 So.2d 628. Although the verdict in the instant case might have been different if we had been the jury, it is supported by the evidence and the amount is not such as to shock our judicial conscience and, therefore, should not be disturbed.
The final judgment here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Wise v. Jacksonville GAS Corp., 97 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957)
- Patrick Gardens, Inc. v. Nash, 100 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 1958)
- Sinclair Ref. Co. v. Butler, 172 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Tampa Transit Lines, Inc. v. Smith, 155 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Raydel, Ltd. v. Medcalfe, 162 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- City OF Hialeah v. Hutchins, 166 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Pensacola Greyhound Racing, Inc. v. Williams, 193 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- Hutchins v. City OF Hialeah, 196 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 1967)
- Hutchins v. City OF Hialeah, 153 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- City OF Hialeah v. Hutchins, 189 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)