GERALDINE LAWMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
D. J. WHALEN ET AL., APPELLEES; EDWARD CLEVELAND SMITH, APPELLANT, V. D. J. WHALEN ET AL., 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.
Appellants sought recovery for injuries from an automobile collision involving a car owned by the Whalens and driven by a minor friend of the Whalen's daughter. The jury found the Whalens not liable based on a finding that the driver lacked consent to use the vehicle, and the appellate court affirmed, rejecting claims that jury instructions on consent were erroneous or prejudicial.
The jury instructions on consent fairly reflected the law and did not prejudice the appellants. The number of instructions on consent was not unduly prejudicial, particularly given that appellants themselves requested numerous instructions on that subject.
[1] A jury's verdict in favor of automobile owners, despite a verdict against the driver, implies a finding that the driver did not have the owner's consent to operate the ve…
[2] Jury instructions on the elements and nature of consent relating to an automobile owner's liability are reviewed for prejudice to the complaining party.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the appellants were not prejudiced by the language of the instructions given since they more than fairly reflect the law of consent as it relates to the subject matter of this cause”
Establishes the court's holding that jury instructions on consent were legally accurate and not prejudicial to appellants
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants were injured in an automobile collision involving a car owned by defendants the Whalens and driven by Janelle Kiernan, a minor who was a fr…
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 Prejudicial Jury Instructions cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants seek review of an adverse final judgment rendered in favor of appel-lees Whalen pursuant to a jury verdict in favor of the latter.
This litigation was instituted by appellants against the appellees to recover for injuries sustained in an automobile collision involving a car owned by the Whalens and driven by Janelle Kiernan, a minor. Janelle was a friend of the Whalen’s daughter, Phyllis. The factual issue which was tried by the jury was whether Janelle was driving the Whalen automobile with the consent of the daughter, Phyllis.
The jury rendered its verdict in favor of the plaintiffs against the defendant, Janelle Kiernan, but found a verdict in favor of the Whalen defendants. Inherent in the verdict favoring the Whalens was a finding of fact that Janelle Kiernan did not have the consent of her friend, Phyllis Whalen, to drive the car at the time the collision occurred.
Appellants contend that the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on the elements and nature of consent as it relates to the liability of an automobile owner for the use or misuse of the vehicle.
We have carefully reviewed the instructions given and those about which appellants complain and hold that the appellants were not prejudiced by the language of the instructions given since they more than fairly reflect the law of consent as it relates to the subject matter of this *498cause. We have also considered appellants’ contention that the number of instructions given on the issue of consent tended to unduly emphasize that particular facet of the case and was therefore prejudicial to the plaintiff. We hold that this contention is also without merit in light of the numerous instructions requested by appellants themselves on the subject. Moreover, no objections were made at the trial against the giving of the instructions now complained of or regarding the inundative effect of the charges raised in this appeal.
Having reviewed the record on appeal, and considered the briefs and arguments of counsel, and it appearing therefrom that appellants have failed to demonstrate error, the judgments reviewed herein are affirmed.
SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.