ADVANCE COMPANY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, D/B/A THE RACQUET CLUB, APPELLANT,
v.
MIKE ALBERT AND HARBOR ISLAND SPA, 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.
The court held that the jury's verdicts were not inconsistent and that the jury charges did not constitute reversible error.
A plaintiff sued two defendants on different theories. The jury returned verdicts in favor of both defendants against the plaintiff and also found no …
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 Appellate Review Of Jury Instructions cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant in its amended complaint sued defendant-appellee Mike Albert upon one theory of liability and defendant-appel-lee Harbor Island Spa upon a different theory of liability. Subsequently, the defendants-appellees cross-claimed against each other. After trial of the cause the jury returned two verdicts, one in favor of the defendants-appellees and against the plaintiff-appellant on the plaintiff-appellant’s claim,1 the other in favor of Harbor Island Spa and against Mike Albert on the cross-claims. The damages in the verdict on the cross-claims were assessed at “none dollars.” This appeal is from a final judgment which ordered that the plaintiff-appellant “take nothing by its suit.”
In its first point the appellant argues that there must be a new trial because the jury returned inconsistent verdicts, since a finding of any responsibility between the cross-claiming defendants-appellees is inconsistent with a finding of no liability on the part of either defendant-appellee to the plaintiff-appellant.
We do not think verdicts are inconsistent if they show that the jury had only one intent. “Verdicts should be construed to carry out a jury’s intention.” Dicosola v. Heitel, Fla.App.1962, 138 So.2d 804. The verdicts in the present case clearly show that the jury intended not to allow the appellant to recover damages from either of the appellees. We hold that the verdicts are not inconsistent and that the appellant is therefore not entitled to a new trial on the ground of inconsistent verdicts.
The appellant’s second point, a claim that the charges to the jury were confusing, does not present reversible error in view of the appellant’s failure to object to any charge. See Plaks v. Florida East Coast Railway Company, Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d 216, 218. But cf. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Flournoy, Fla.App.1961, 136 So.2d 32, 34.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Phillips v. Ostrer, 481 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…la.1969); South Miami Hospital v. Sanchez, 386 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Sunrise Point, Inc. v. Reliance Realty, Inc., 371 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Courts should construe verdicts to carry out the jury’s intentions. Advance Co. v. Albert, 216 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 225 So. 2d 526 (Fla.1969). Although a jury may award a greater sum than the trial court deems appropriate, the court may not interfere unless the sum is so large that it indicates the jury must have been under the i…
-
Skidmore v. The Volpe Constr. Co., Inc., 511 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…withstanding the jury verdict. A verdict is presumed correct and should be construed to give effect to the jury’s intent. Phillips v. Ostrer, 481 So. 2d 1241, 1246 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), review denied, 492 So. 2d 1334 (Fla.1986); Advance Co. v. Albert, 216 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 225 So. 2d 526 (Fla.1969); Dicosola v. Heitel, 138 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962). In this case, the jury intended to return a verdict in favor of Volpe Construction Company [Volpe] on its contract claim and in favor…
-
Brod v. Ira L. Adler, 570 So. 2d 1312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…during his employ.” The rule is well-settled that courts should construe verdicts to carry out the jury’s intention. Phillips v. Ostrer, 481 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), review denied, 492 So. 2d 1334 (Fla.1986); Advance Company, Inc. v. Albert, 216 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 225 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1969); Dicosola v. Heitel, 138 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962). Here, the jury’s intention was clear, as the trial court so found — to award appellee 50% of the net proceeds recovered by G.M. Brod…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. & Wallis J. Crosby v. Flournoy, 136 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)
- Plaks v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., 175 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Dicosola v. Juliette K. Heitel, 138 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)