MAXINE THELMA MITCHELL, AS GUARDIAN OF CHARLES ROOSEVELT MITCHELL, INCOMPETENT, APPELLANT,
v.
BURGESS & COOK, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND KENNETH LAMAR HUNT, 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 appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict.
Appellant sued appellees for damages resulting from negligent operation of a motor vehicle. The jury returned a verdict in favor of appellees.…
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 Negligent Operation Of A Motor Vehicle cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks review of an adverse final judgment rendered upon a jury verdict in favor of appellees. The cause of action sued upon is for the recovery of damages suffered by appellant as a result of appellees’ alleged negligent operation of a motor vehicle. The principal question preserved on appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment.
In our review of the issues presented for decision we have given due consideration to the applicable principle that a judgment of the trial court reaches the appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness. The record reveals that although the testimony is conflicting, there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the jury as reflected by its verdict and the conclusion reached by the trial court in denying appellant’s motion for a new trial. These findings and conclusions will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing that they are erroneous and unsupported by the record.1
We have carefully considered appellant’s remaining points charging error by the trial court’s refusal to strike appellees’ defense of contributory negligence and to grant appellant’s requested jury instruction on the doctrine of last clear chance. We find these contentions to be without merit.2
The judgment appealed is accordingly affirmed.
CARROLL, DONALD K„ Acting C. J., WIGGINTON, J., and McLANE, RALPH M., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- OLD Equity Life Ins. Co. v. Franklyn Levenson, 177 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Stoller v. Jaffe, 125 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Williams v. Scott, 153 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Rodriguez v. Haller, 177 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)