HIGBEE ET UX.
v.
DORIGO; HOTEL RUNNYMEDE, INC. V. DORIGO
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.
In this consolidated personal injury case arising from an automobile collision, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed jury verdicts finding the defendant negligent and awarding damages to the corporate vehicle owner and one individual plaintiff, while denying recovery to a passenger plaintiff. The court held that jury verdicts on damages are entitled to deference and will not be disturbed absent clear evidence of prejudice, passion, or legal error.
The jury verdicts were proper and sufficiently predicated judgment. Although the verdicts contained some technical defects in form, no objection was made, and the plain intention of the jury that Mrs. Higbee receive no recovery was evident. The jury had the right to find her injuries inconsequential and award no damages. The damage awards to Hotel Runnymede, Inc. ($800) and Everett J. Higbee ($750) were within the jury's discretion.
“the question of damages is one lodged in the sound discretion of the jury within reasonable bounds, and the findings of a jury in respect to damages will not be disturbed by this Court unless it plainly appears that the verdict was induced by prejudice or passion or some misconception of the law or evidence, or that the jury failed to consider all the elements of the damages involved or the issues submitted.”
Establishes the deferential standard of review for jury damage awards, requiring clear evidence of error to overturn.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEverett J. Higbee was driving a car owned by Hotel Runnymede, Inc., with his wife Carolyn as a passenger, when Werner Dorigo negligently drove his car…
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.
SEBRING, Justice.
These appeals are brought by the plaintiffs below from judgments entered in personal injury actions growing out of the collision of two automobiles on the public highway.
Everett J. Higbee was driving a car owned by Hotel Runnymede, Inc., a New Jersey corporation. Carolyn R. Higbee was riding as a passenger in the front seat of the car which her husband was operating. One Werner Dorigo negligently drove his car into the rear of the car being driven by Higbee.
Higbee and wife sued Dorigo to recover damages for physical injuries. Hotel Runnymede, Inc., sued to recover damages for damage to the automobile. The cases were consolidated for trial.
After the evidence was in and the jury had been charged in respect to the applicable law-of the case, the trial judge submitted various printed forms to the jury for use by them in registering their verdicts.
In due course the jury returned into open court with the following verdict in the case of Hotel Runnymede, Inc., v. Dorigo:
“We, the Jury, find for the plaintiff Hotel Runnymede, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation, and against the defendant Werner Dorigo, and assess its damages in the sum of 800.00 Dollars.”
In the case of Higbee and wife v. Dorigo, the jury returned the following verdicts:
“We, the Jury, find for the plaintiff Everett J. Higbee and against the defendant Werner Dorigo, and assess his damages in the sum of $750.00 Dollars; we further find for the plaintiff Carolyn R. Higbee and against the defendant Werner Dorigo, and assess her damages in the sum of None Dollars * * *and
“We, the Jury find for the defendant Werner Dorigo in the case of Carolyn R. Higbee v. Werner Dorigo * *
No objection was made by either party to the form of the verdicts returned in the case of Everett J. Higbee and Carolyn R. Higbee v. Werner Dorigo. Therefore, any defect as to form was waived; and inasmuch as there is evidenced a plain intention on the part of the jury that Mrs. Higbee should have no recovery, or th,at no damages allowed plaintiffs in the suit should be apportioned to her claim, we think that the verdicts must be considered as constituting a sufficient predicate for the rendition of the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs for $750 and costs. See Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Price, Fla., 46 So. 2d 481; Dania Lumber & Supp. Co. v. Senter, 113 Fla. 332, 152 So. 2.
As to the proposition that the un-controverted evidence required the return of a verdict of a very considerable sum in favor of Mrs. Higbee, we think that from the testimony given by this plaintiff the jury had the right to believe that such injuries as she allegedly received in the collision were of such an inconsequential nature that she should have no recovery, or that no useful purpose would be served by apportioning any damages to her claim. Compare Dania Lumber & Supp. Co. v. Senter, supra.
While we entertain the view that in the actions brought by Hotel Runnymede, Inc., and Everett J. Higbee, larger verdicts than were returned could have been justified on the evidence, the question of damages is one lodged in the sound discretion of the jury within reasonable bounds, and the findings of a jury in respect to damages will not be disturbed by this Court unless it plainly appears that the verdict was induced by prejudice or passion or some misconception of the law or evidence, or that the jury failed to consider all the elements of the damages involved or the issues submitted. Bulmer v. Strawn, Fla., 53 So. 2d 315; Radiant Oil Co. v. Herring, 146 Fla. 154, 200 So. 376.
The judgments appealed from should be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL and MATFIEWS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (39 total)
-
Dorthy Bould and Edward Simonson, Jr. v. Touchette, 349 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1977)…ry discretion. The court may review their discretion but not the amount awarded unless shown to be clearly arbitrary. * * *’ “The determination of the amount of such damages is peculiarly within the province of the jury. Higbee v. Dorigo, Fla.1953, 66 So. 2d 684; Merwin v. Rellenas, Fla.1955, 78 So. 2d 865; Sproule v. Nelson, supra. “In Upton v. Hutchison, Fla.1950, 46 So. 2d 20, 21, the Supreme Court said: ‘It is well settled that the verdict of a jury will not be disturbed by this court on appeal where t…
-
Phillips v. Ostrer, 481 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…eral inconsistencies and inherent defects in the interrogatories, appellants' failure to raise these inconsistencies prior to the discharge of the jury constitutes a waiver of their right to challenge the interrogatories on appeal. Higbee v. Dorigo, 66 So. 2d 684 (Fla.1953); N. American Catamaran Racing Assoc. v. McCollister, 480 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Ashby Div. of Consol. Aluminum Corp. v. Dobkin, 458 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Savoca v. Sherry Frontenac Hotel Operating Co., 346 So. 2d 1207 (F…
-
Hill v. Dep't OF Corr., 513 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 1987)…arge unless he objects thereto at such time or the failure to give any charge unless he requested the same.... We have expressly held that where no objection is made to the form of the verdict, any defect as to form is waived. See Higbee v. Dorigo, 66 So. 2d 684 (Fla.1953). In a similar case concerning a verdict form, the Second District Court of Appeal determined that appellants waived any ambiguities when they failed to object to the form of the verdict. Rosario v. Melvin, 446 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 19…
Previewing 3 of 39 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Radiant Oil Co. v. Herring, 146 Fla. 154 (Fla. 1941)
- Atl. Coast Line R. Co. v. Price, 46 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1950)
- Dania Lumber & Supply Co. v. Senter, 113 Fla. 332 (Fla. 1933)