LESTER E. BRASTROM AND JOSEPH LESTER BRASTROM, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOHN GRIDER, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appellate Review Of Jury Instructions cases and more on FLexlaw
Affirmed.
CROSS, McCAIN and OWEN, JJ., concur.
On Petition for Rehearing
The proverbial fury of a woman scorned is undoubtedly matched by that of an appellant’s lawyer whose well-presented case is rewarded with a decision stating tersely, “per curiam, affirmed”. Such decisions frequently spawn a petition for rehearing [as it did in this case] in which the suggestion is made that the court either overlooked or failed to grasp the appellants’ point on appeal. A brief opinion in such cases, while understandably of little consolation to the unsuccessful appellant, would at least assuage the thought that the point had been overlooked.1
Appellants’ point on this appeal was that Florida Standard Jury Instruction 4.2 does not adequately define automobile guest passenger gross negligence, and hence the court erred in not enlarging on the instruction by the giving of various and sundry other definitions of gross negligence as requested by appellants. The argument which appellants presented in support of this point was carefully considered and by our decision affirming per curiam without opinion, by implication we rejected this argument and approved the instruction as being sufficient. It having been brought to our attention that there are no reported decisions of this jurisdiction upholding the validity of this particular instruction, we now expressly hold that the Florida Standard Jury Instruction No. 4.2 adequately defines automobile guest passenger negligence and that it was not error on the part of the trial court to refuse appellants' requested instructions which sought to amplify or supplement the standard instruction. Our holding is restricted solely to the *502refusal to give additional charges on the subject and we express no opinion on the propriety of the giving of additional charges as provided by Form 1.985, see In re Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Fla.1968, 211 So.2d 174, as that matter is not before us in this case.
The petition for rehearing is denied.
CROSS and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
On Petition for Rehearing
OWEN, Judge.
The proverbial fury of a woman scorned is undoubtedly matched by that of an appellant’s lawyer whose well-presented case is rewarded with a decision stating tersely, “per curiam, affirmed”. Such decisions frequently spawn a petition for rehearing [as it did in this case] in which the suggestion is made that the court either overlooked or failed to grasp the appellants’ point on appeal. A brief opinion in such cases, while understandably of little consolation to the unsuccessful appellant, would at least assuage the thought that the point had been overlooked.1
Appellants’ point on this appeal was that Florida Standard Jury Instruction 4.2 does not adequately define automobile guest passenger gross negligence, and hence the court erred in not enlarging on the instruction by the giving of various and sundry other definitions of gross negligence as requested by appellants. The argument which appellants presented in support of this point was carefully considered and by our decision affirming per curiam without opinion, by implication we rejected this argument and approved the instruction as being sufficient. It having been brought to our attention that there are no reported decisions of this jurisdiction upholding the validity of this particular instruction, we now expressly hold that the Florida Standard Jury Instruction No. 4.2 adequately defines automobile guest passenger negligence and that it was not error on the part of the trial court to refuse appellants' requested instructions which sought to amplify or supplement the standard instruction. Our holding is restricted solely to the refusal to give additional charges on the subject and we express no opinion on the propriety of the giving of additional charges as provided by Form 1.985, see In re Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Fla.1968, 211 So. 2d 174, as that matter is not before us in this case.
The petition for rehearing is denied.
CROSS and McCAIN, JJ., concur. . See Canon 19, Canons of Judicial Ethics, 32 F.S.A.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas AIR Conditioning & Refrigeration Co., Inc. v. Bankston, 231 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…law with reference to gross negligence in such case by giving the applicable recommended charge No. 4.2 of 'Florida Standard Jury Instructions, relating to gross negligence under the guest statute, is without merit. Brastrom v. Grider, Fla.App.1968, 215 So. 2d 501, is in point. See also Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. McKinney, Fla.App.1969, 227 So. 2d 99. We find no merit in the appellants’ contention that the trial court committed error in denying their motion for mistrial, where counsel for the defendan…
Authorities Cited
- In re Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 211 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1968)