PETER CASTALDO, APPELLANT,
v.
SINGAPORE, J. F. INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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 decision because the record was insufficient to review the jury instructions.
Plaintiff sued for negligence and lost at trial. He appealed, arguing the judge erred in refusing specific jury instructions. The appellate court only…
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 Sufficiency Of The Record cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, suffered an adverse jury verdict in a “slip and fall” negligence action. He pursued this appeal and has preserved three points for review, all relating to the failure of the trial judge to give certain jury instructions.
The only portion of the trial transcript brought to this court is the charge conference and the charge as given by the trial court. The trial judge gave the standard jury instructions applicable to the cause, but declined to give three specific instructions requested by the plaintiff because he said they were inappropriate under the evidence, as received. The appellant having declined to bring the trial testimony before this court for review, we are unable to determine the propriety of the trial court’s refusal to give the specific requests.
Therefore, we affirm the action of the trial judge, because the record is insufficient to determine whether or not he committed error in declining to give the complained of instructons. Crosby v. Stubblebine, Fla.App.1962, 142 So.2d 358; Clark v. Gray, Fla.App.1962, 143 So.2d 504; Direct Transport Company of Florida v. Rakaskas, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 623; Speight v. Dulimba, Fla.App.1968, 208 So.2d 833.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gallagher v. Fed. Ins. Co., 346 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…n the incomplete record before us, that the jurors were, in fact, misled, or that the failure to so instruct otherwise resulted in prejudicial error. See Crosby v. Stubblebine, 142 So. 2d 358 (Fla.2d DCA 1962), and Castaldo v. Singapore, J. F. Inc., 258 So. 2d 499 (Fla.3d DCA 1972). Moreover, based on the verdict form presented to the jury containing the special interrogatories, recited above, we find that the jury did have the opportunity to determine the negligence, if any, and the percentages of negligenc…
-
Perry v. Horton Perry, 298 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…retion has been demonstrated. We affirm. Pierson v. Sharp, 283 So. 2d 880 (4th D.C.A.Fla.1973); Blacharski v. Watts, 268 So. 2d 465 (4th D.C.A.Fla.1972); Rosenstein v. Raticoff, 265 So. 2d 387 (4th D.C.A.Fla.1972); Castaldo v. Singapore J. F. Inc., 258 So. 2d 499 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1972); Latin American Benefit Center, Inc. v. Johnstoneaux, 257 So. 2d 86 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1972); Sun Plastics, Inc. v. Internat’l Identifiers, Inc., 213 So. 2d 258 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1968); Phillips v. Blum, 139 So. 2d 459 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1962)…
-
Rafield v. Benham, 356 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Castaldo v. Singapore, J. F., Inc., 258 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972) and cases cited therein.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Crosby v. Stubblebine, 142 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Direct Transp. Co. OF Fla., Inc. v. Rakaskas, 167 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Ball v. Harris Paving & Constr. Co., 208 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Queenie Flowers Speight and Alvin Speight v. Dulimba, 208 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Clark v. Gray, 143 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)