MARIA LOUISA GARCIA, APPELLANT,
v.
RAFAEL LUJANDO, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1971-10-26
No. 71-241
Before PEARSON, HENDRY and BARKDULL, JJ.
253 So. 2d 725 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1971) Positive Treatment
Cited by 10 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in the trial court appeals a final judgment entered on a jury verdict. The ground urged upon appeal is that the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion for a new trial because the manifest weight of the evidence is such that the jury could have arrived at its verdict only by misapprehension or prejudice. We have reviewed the record in the light of the arguments advanced and find that the judgment must be affirmed under the rule that where there is substantial, competent evidence to support a jury’s finding of fact, the appellate court will not substitute its judgment for that of the jury. Wrains v. Rose, Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d 75.

Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Salnave v. Pub. Health Tr. OF Dade Cnty., 624 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
    …t Memorial Hosp., Inc. v. Bell, 384 So. 2d 145 (Fla.1980) (standard for appellate review of denial of motion for new trial is whether trial court abused its discretion); Fernandez v. Berkel, Inc., 506 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Garcia v. Lujando, 253 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971) (appellate court will not substitute its judgment for that of jury where there is substantial, competent evidence to support finding of fact). We also find that the unobjected to comments do not rise to the level of fundamental…
  • Bradshaw v. State Farm Auto. INS. Co., 714 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
    …h the intersection”). Since there was competent substantial evidence from which a jury could conclude that Robert was 20% negligent in this accident, this appellate court will not substitute its judgment for that of the jury. See Garcia v. Lujando, 253 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). There was no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion for new trial on the basis of the jury’s 80%/20% liability determination. Schaller v. K-Mart Corp. 631 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). II. FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES The…
  • Manchester Ins. & Indem. Co. v. Valley Jones, 317 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
    …was presented from which a jury could find for the plaintiff, Jones, against Manchester. Therefore, the trial judge did not err in entering judgment on the verdict and in failing to direct a verdict for Manchester. Garcia v. Lujando, Fla.App. 1971, 253 So. 2d 725; Tuz v. Burmeister, Fla.App.1971, 254 So. 2d 569, 571. Manchester’s second contention is without merit. The applicable statute, § 627.727, Fla.Stat., specifically provides that an insured is covered with uninsured motorist protection unless such pr…

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw