MARVIN
v.
BYRD
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 reversed a jury verdict of $100 for a plaintiff injured in a car accident, finding the award inadequate and ordering a new trial solely on the issue of damages.
Yes, the $100 verdict was inadequate given the severity of the plaintiff's injuries.
“We do not think the injury caused could be compensated by a verdict of $100.”
Establishes the court's finding of inadequacy in the jury's award.
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, a passenger in a car, suffered a severe scalp laceration requiring stitches, a concussion, and disorientation after a motor vehicle acc…
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 New Trial On Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
TERRELL, Justice.
This case is a companion case to and grew out of the same motor vehicle accident as Marvin v. Byrd, 67 So. 2d 415. The appellant in the instant case was a passenger in the automobile, and a daughter of appellant in the companion case, and was seriously injured. At the trial the jury returned a verdict for $100 for the plaintiff, a new trial was denied and the plaintiff has appealed.
The only question brought here for determination is predicated on the alleged inadequacy of the verdict.
We have carefully examined the evidence and it shows that the plaintiff received a severe laceration on the scalp, a brain concussion and was disorientated as to time and locality. It took several sutures to close the wound, she was given tetanus antitoxin and penicillin and was seen at least four times by the doctor. We do not think the injury caused could be compensated by a verdict of $100. We think the ends of justice require a new trial on the question of damages only.
For which the judgment appealed from is reversed and a new tidal awarded.
Reversed.
ROBERTS, C. J., MATHEWS, J., and HOLT, Associate Justice, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Holland v. Hall, 145 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)…cause for a new trial on all issues.3 Reversed and remanded. CARROLL, DONALD K., C. J., and RAWLS, J., concur. . See Randolph v. Clack, (Fla.App.1959) 113 So. 2d 270. . See Ellis v. Brown, (Fla.1955) 77 So. 2d 845. . Marvin v. Byrd, (Fla.1953) 67 So. 2d 416; Allen v. Powell et al. (1943) 152 Fla. 443, 12 So. 2d 378.…
-
Marvin v. Byrd, 67 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 1953)
-
Hickson v. Stetzel, 172 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)…situation in this case is very similar to the instant case, except in the instant case the lower court granted the motion for new trial, while in the Sorg case the lower court entered judgment on an inadequate verdict. See Marvin v. Byrd, Fla.1953, 67 So. 2d 416; Utley v. Southern Metal Products Co., Inc., Fla.App. 1959, 116 So. 2d 28. We conclude that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial in this case. Affirmed. SHANNON and WHITE, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Marvin v. Byrd, 67 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 1953)