DAVID C. POPHAM ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
JEANNE BAKER 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed a $155,000 judgment for personal injury damages, rejecting arguments that attorney remarks constituted improper golden rule arguments, that future medical expenses were erroneously included in jury instructions, and that the verdict was excessive.
No reversible error was shown in the trial court's judgment awarding $125,000 to the injured passenger and $30,000 to her husband for derivative damages.
[1] Attorney remarks in closing argument that do not constitute improper golden rule arguments are not grounds for reversal where the evidence supports the jury's considerati…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJeanne Baker was injured as a passenger in an automobile that collided with a vehicle owned by Barkett and driven by Popham with Barkett's consent.…
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 Jury Instructions On Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In an action by the appellee Jeanne Baker for damages for personal injuries, and by her husband the appellee Frank Baker for derivative damages, a verdict rendered in favor of the plaintiffs awarded $125,000 and $30,000 to them respectively. The defendants appealed.
The injuries were received by Jeanne Baker while a passenger in an automobile involved in a collision with one owned by the appellant Barkett driven with his consent by the appellant Popham.
On consideration of the contentions presented by the appellant, in the light of the record, briefs and argument, we hold no reversible error has been shown. The remarks of plaintiffs’ attorney in argument before the jury which appellants contend constitute “golden rule arguments”, have been examined and are found not to be such. Based on the evidence the inclusion of the element of future medical expense, in the jury charges relating to damages, was not error. The appellants’ contention that the verdict awards were excessive and such as to shock the judicial conscience is held to he without merit. A post verdict motion claiming excessiveness and seeking an order for a remittitur was considered and denied by the trial court. On consideration thereof here, we find no reason in law to disturb the verdict and judgment.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Diaz v. Sears, 475 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…nadequate damage award. Middelveen v. Sibson Realty, Inc., 417 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); American National Bank of Jacksonville v. Norris, 368 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Taylor v. Craig, 354 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Popham v. Baker, 309 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). We also find no error in the trial court’s exercising its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion to interview the jurors. Cummings v. Sine, 404 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Kasper Instruments, Inc., v. Maurice, 394 So. 2d 112…
-
Taylor v. Craig, 354 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…emonstrate reversible error, the verdict and judgment based thereon are affirmed. See Cleere v. Humphreys, 280 [*106] So. 2d 23 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); St. Vincent’s Hospital, Incorporated v. Crouch, 292 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Popham v. Baker, 309 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Affirmed.…