TAMPA TRANSIT LINES, INC., A CORPORATION,
v.
JOHN L. CHAPMAN
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 $12,000 personal injury judgment, finding no reversible error in the trial court's handling of contributory negligence, judicial comments, insurance, or the judgment amount.
No, the Florida Supreme Court held that there was no reversible error. The court found ample support for the verdict regarding contributory negligence and no reversible error on the other properly preserved issues.
“We have examined the record and we find the material points affecting contributory negligence so sharply controverted and since there appears ample support for the verdict and judgment, we find no reason to reverse the trial court on this point.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for not reversing the judgment based on the issue of contributory negligence.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, John L. Chapman, was awarded $12,000 in a personal injury lawsuit against Tampa Transit Lines, Inc. The defendant appealed, arguing con…
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 Contributory Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an action for personal injuries growing out of a crossing accident. The plaintiff secured a judgment for $12,000 and the defendant appealed. It is contended that the judgment should be reversed because the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, that the trial judge commented prejudicially about the weight of the evidence, that the matter in indemnity insurance was injected into the picture and that the judgment was excessive.
We have examined the record and we find the material points affecting contributory negligence so sharply controverted and since there appears ample support for the verdict and judgment, we find no reason to reverse the trial court on this point. On the other points that are properly before us, no reversible error is shown so the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
BUFORD, C. J., TERRELL, CHAPMAN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.