ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY SECOND COLLINS CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
JAN ROSENE AND HOWARD ROSENE, HER HUSBAND, APPELTEES
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.
This case addresses whether a jury verdict finding one joint tort-feasor liable while absolving another is legally inconsistent. The court held that such verdicts are permissible, affirming the judgment against the liable defendant.
No, a jury verdict is not inconsistent when it finds one of two joint tort-feasors liable but absolves the other. A plaintiff may obtain a judgment against one or both defendants charged as joint tort-feasors.
“The appellant urges first that the verdict is inconsistent because the jury could not have found appellant liable without also finding the other defendant liable, and that therefore the judgment entered upon the verdict must be reversed.”
This quote states the appellant's primary argument on appeal regarding the alleged inconsistency of the jury's verdict.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiffs sued two defendants, alleging they were joint tort-feasors whose negligence caused injury. The jury returned a verdict finding only one…
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 Joint Tortfeasors cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was one of two defendants to appellees’ complaint alleging negligence by the two defendants. Upon trial of the case the jury found for the plaintiffs and against the defendant-appellant only.
The appellant urges first that the verdict is inconsistent because the jury could not have found appellant liable without also finding the other defendant liable, and that therefore the judgment entered upon the verdict must be reversed.
The defendants were charged, in substance, with failing to perform a common duty each owed to appellee Jan Rosene. They were therefore charged with being joint tort-feasors. 1 Harper and James, Torts, § 10.1 at 692-693. Appellant has not demonstrated error under its first point since a plaintiff can take a judgment against one or both defendants charged with being joint tort-feasors. Colle v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 153 Fla. 258, 14 So.2d 422 (1943).
Appellant’s other points, including the point that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, are not well taken.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Talcott v. Cent. Bank & Tr. Co., 247 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…y possible but it is not necessarily unjust or unintended since the judgment holder always had the right to pursue any one judgment debtor for the entire amount of the judgment. One Hundred Seventy Second Collins Corporation v. Rosene, Fla.App.1969, 222 So. 2d 444. We agree with the trial judge that there is no reason to require the appellee here to release all the judgment debtors in order to release one unless the law is so set in this factual situation that a contrary result cannot be allowed without doing…
-
ORR v. United States, 486 F.2d 270 (5th Cir. 1973)…t of the damages properly obtain here. Although this rule has been generally followed in Florida, see, e. g., Colle v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co., 1943, 153 Fla. 258, 14 So. 2d 422; One Hundred Seventy Second Collins Corp. v. Rosene, Fla.App.1969, 222 So. 2d 444, here we have one common law rule sought to be applied to a statute that discards another common law rule. In short, we are forced to consider the proper method of computation under Chapter 769 when there are multiple defendants to be an open questi…
Authorities Cited
- Jules J. Colle v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 153 Fla. 258 (Fla. 1943)