CAUSEWAY MARINA, INC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
PERRY MANDEL, 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.
Causeway Marina appeals a judgment awarding boat owner Mandel $3,750 in damages for injury to his stored boat caused by a forklift malfunction. The court affirmed, finding the jury's negligence verdict supported by evidence and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applicable given the marina's exclusive control of the equipment and destruction of the causative evidence.
The judgment for the plaintiff was proper and is affirmed. The jury's finding of negligence is supported by the evidence and does not constitute judicial error. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies because the hydraulic hose (the causative agent) was destroyed and unavailable for inspection, and the forklift was under the exclusive control of the defendants.
[1] A jury's finding of negligence will not be disturbed on appeal unless trial proceedings reveal judicial error so prejudicial to a fair trial as to justify reversal.
[2] An appellate court will not substitute its judgment for the jury's interpretation of the facts.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 jury acted within its province on conflicting testimony and evidentiary inferences, and we cannot disturb its finding of negligence unless the trial proceedings reveal judicial error so prejudicial to a fair trial as to justify reversal.”
Establishes the standard of review for jury verdicts on appeal and the court's deference to jury fact-finding.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMandel stored his boat at Causeway Marina in a stacked storage system. While a forklift operated by the marina and maintained by W.E. Johnson Company …
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 Res Ipsa Loquitur cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant-appellants seek review of the lower court’s judgment awarding plaintiff-appellee $3,750 in damages.
Plaintiff-appellee stored his boat at appellant Causeway Marina, Inc. The boats at the marina are stored in various slots and stacked three high. They are moved on and off the racks by a forklift which is operated by the appellant marina and maintained by appellant W. E. Johnson Company. While a boat was being stacked the forklift failed when a hydraulic hose burst. As a result the boat fell and damaged appellee’s boat on the lower rack along with a boat on the middle rack. Several days later appellee, Mr. Mandel, arrived at the marina and discovered his boat was damaged. About two months thereafter, appellee signed an authorization to allow the marina to repair the boat. Appellant marina would not release the boat until appellee paid the repair bill and storage costs incurred subsequent to the accident. About 10 months after the accident Mandel finally paid the costs in full. Appellee filed suit to recover damages resulting from the physical damage to his boat and loss of its use. The jury returned a verdict of $5,000. The court ordered and appellee accepted a remittitur of $1,250. Appellants’ motion for new trial was denied. The court then entered a judgment of $3,750 plus costs in favor of appellee. This appeal followed.
Defendant-appellants allege it was error for the trial court to enter final judgment for the plaintiff.
The jury acted within its province on conflicting testimony and eviden-tiary inferences, and we cannot disturb its finding of negligence unless the trial proceedings reveal judicial error so prejudicial to a fair trial as to justify reversal. See 2 Fla.Jur. Appeals § 345 (1963) and cases cited therein. The proceedings do not reveal such error. Further, it is not the function of this court to substitute its judgment for interpretation of the facts for that of the jury. Holland Paving Company v. Dann, Fla.App.1964, 169 So.2d 849; Food Fair Stores of Fla., Inc. v. Vallarelli, Fla.App.1958, 101 So.2d 161.
In addition, the record reflects that the hydraulic hose, which apparently rup*73tured or leaked and was the proximate cause of the accident, had been discarded and, thus, was never available to appellee for inspection. We note also th^t the forklift was under the exclusive coittrol of the appellants. In light of the foregoing facts, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur undoubtedly is applicable to the case at bar. See 23 Fla.Jur. Negligence §§ 115, 116 (1959).
We have considered appellants’ remaining points on appeal and find them to be without merit.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed must be and hereby is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Indus. Waste Serv., Inc. v. Ada Henderson, 305 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…trial motions made by the appellants. It also is not the function of this court to substitute its judgment for the jury’s determination in a case of this nature. Byers v. Gunn, Fla.1955, 81 So. 2d 723; Causeway Marina, Inc. v. Mandel, Fla.App.1973, 276 So. 2d 71. We find from the record that the trial court carefully instructed the jury with respect to the alleged negligence of Henderson, Gardner and Warren. The court went further by submitting a special verdict so that the jury might specifically consider…
-
Klingshirn Corp. OF Fla., Inc. v. Turk, 334 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…d by substantial competent evidence and no error by the trial court has been made to appear. See, e. g., Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Colposcope of America, Inc., Fla. App. 1975, 308 So. 2d 52; Causeway Marina, Inc. v. Mandel, Fla.App. 1973, 276 So. 2d 71; Brainard v. Poole, Fla.App.1968, 214 So. 2d 510; Land v. Patroni, Fla.App. 1968, 214 So. 2d 94; and 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals §§ 316 and 346. We have considered the record, all points in the briefs, and arguments of counsel in light of the controlling p…
-
Marqueen A. Schlarbaum and Charles Schlarbaum v. Temple Emanu-El, 372 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Saucer v. City of West Palm Beach, 155 Fla. 659, 21 So. 2d 452 (1945); Pagano v. Morrison’s Textiles, Inc., 149 So. 2d 897 (Fla.3d DCA 1963), and Causeway Marina, Inc. v. Mandel, 276 So. 2d 71 (Fla.3d DCA 1973).…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Holland Paving Co., Inc. v. Dann, 169 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Food Fair Stores OF Fla., Inc. v. Clementine Vallarelli and her husband, 101 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)