FOOD FAIR PROPERTIES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
LEONORA SNELLGROVE AND JOHN SNELLGROVE, 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.
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish liability under the law, but the assessment of all costs against a single defendant was improper.
Plaintiffs sued multiple defendants, and a jury found only one defendant (appellant) liable for plaintiffs' injuries, exonerating the others. The tria…
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 Assessment Of Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by one of the defendants from a final judgment for the plaintiffs. The judgment was entered pursuant to a jury verdict which exonerated the other defendants and held the appellant liable for plaintiffs’ injuries. Appellant has presented six points on appeal, each of which has been examined and found not to present reversible error except as to the point directed to the taxation of costs.
We think that it is unnecessary to examine each of appellant’s points which would require discussion of trial procedure, the rules of evidence, instructions to the jury, and the offer of post-trial motions. Appellant’s basic position is that the evidence before the trial court was insufficient to establish a theory of liability for plaintiffs’ injuries. We find from our review of the record that liability appears under the facts of this case under the law expressed in Leveridge v. Lapidus, Fla.App. 1958, 105 So. 2d 207.
Appellant’s point directed to the assessment of the entire costs of the proceeding against it as the single defendant found liable is well-taken. See Van Devahder v. Knesnik, Fla.App.1973, 281 So. 2d 57.
The judgment is affirmed except as to the assessment of costs in the trial court, and the cause is remanded with directions for the assessment of costs in accordance with the views expressed in Van Devander v. Knesnik, supra.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Vega, 414 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…cause we have determined that there is no liability against DOT, the cost judgment against the Department must also be reversed. See Goldstein v. Acme Concrete Corporation, 103 So. 2d 202, 205 (Fla.1958). In Food Fair Properties, Inc. v. Snellgrove, 292 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), we recognized the injustice of allowing a plaintiff to obtain a cost judgment against the single losing defendant where those costs included prosecution of a successful joint defendant. Accordingly, Mrs. Lopez may not be taxed fo…
Authorities Cited
- Leveridge v. Lapidus, 105 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- VAN Devander v. Emil L. Knesnik, 281 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)