DORIS ADLER, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND AND NEXT FRIEND, JOSEPH ADLER
v.
NELLY SAFFRAN
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a jury verdict awarding $2500 in damages for assault and battery, finding sufficient evidence of the defendant's actions causing the plaintiff's injuries and that the award was not excessive.
Yes, there was ample evidence to sustain the jury's conclusion that the defendant's actions caused the plaintiff's injuries and that the $2500 award was not excessive.
“There is ample evidence in the record to sustain the conclusion evidently reached by the jury that the defendant pushed or shoved the plaintiff, causing her to fall whereby her arm was broken and her shoulder dislocated.”
Establishes the factual basis for the jury's verdict.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, Doris Adler, sued Nelly Saffran for damages resulting from an assault and battery. The jury found that the defendant pushed the plainti…
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 Personal Injury Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before us on writ of error to a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, defendant in error here, in the sum of $2500.00
The suit was for damages alleged to have been caused by an assault and battery. There is ample evidence in the record to sustain the conclusion evidently reached by the jury that the defendant pushed or shoved the plaintiff, causing her to fall whereby her arm was broken and her shoulder dislocated.
The evidence is sufficient to show such conduct on the part of the defendant resulting in such injury to the plaintiff as would make the defendant liable to plaintiff in damages for the injury sustained.
In the case of Pandula v. Fonseca, 145 Fla. 395, 199 Sou. 358, we affirmed the judgment in the sum of $3500.00 for damages resulting from assault and battery and, while the injury suffered in the instant case was not as severe as that which was shown to *550have been suffered in the Pandula case, we cannot say that the verdict and judgment are so excessive as to require a remittitur or reversal of the judgment. See also Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Archer, 126 Fla. 308, 171 Sou. 214.
The judgment, therefore, stands affirmed.
Brown, C. J., Whitfield, Terrell, Chapman, Thomas and Adams, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (80 total)
-
Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Brevard Cnty. v. Snyder, 627 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 1993)…for zoning purposes be fairly debatable, the legislative judgment must be allowed to control.” 272 U.S. at 388, 47 S.Ct. at 118. This Court expressly adopted the fairly debatable principle in City of Miami Beach v. Ocean & Inland Co., 147 Fla. 480, 3 So. 2d 364 (1941). Inhibited only by the loose judicial scrutiny afforded by the fairly debatable rule, local zoning systems developed in a markedly inconsistent manner. Many land use experts and practitioners have been critical of the local zoning system. Ri…
-
City of Miami Beach v. Lachman, 71 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 1953)…gal v. City of Miami, Fla., 63 So. 2d 496, and State ex rel. Office Realty Company v. Ehinger, Fla., 46 So. 2d 601. Appellee relies on Forde v. City of Miami Beach, 146 Fla. 676; 1 So. 2d 642, City of Miami Beach v. Ocean & Inland Co., 147 Fla. 480, 3 So. 2d 364, and City of Miami Beach v. First Trust C.o., Fla., 45 So. 2d 681. Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Amber Realty Company approved the authority of a municipality to promulgate' zoning regulations on the theory 'that the increase and concentration" of pop…
-
City OF Miami Beach v. Wiesen, 86 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 1956)…the presumptive validity of the ordinance reclassifying the property for hotel and apartment purposes pursuant to the court’s order. Mr. Justice Thomas, speaking for the Court in the case of City of Miami Beach v. Ocean & Inland Co., 147 Fla. 480, 3 So. 2d 364, 366, said: “At the juncture of these streets property which may be devoted to business abruptly ends and that which may be used for hotels and apartments as suddenly begins but there must be a line of demarcation between them somewhere. * * * The…
Previewing 3 of 80 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Archer, 126 Fla. 308 (Fla. 1936)
- Pandula v. Pinkey Fonseca, 145 Fla. 395 (Fla. 1940)