ELLA PEZZI, APPELLANT,
v.
BURNUP & SIMS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Ella Pezzi appealed a jury verdict finding defendants not negligent in an accident where she was injured. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, rejecting her principal argument that the trial court erred in refusing a jury instruction on intervening cause.
The trial court did not commit reversible error in refusing the intervening cause instruction. The verdict was supported by evidence and the trial court's rulings, including the jury instruction ruling, did not constitute harmful error.
Plaintiff Ella Pezzi was injured in an accident involving defendant Burnup & Sims, Inc. The case proceeded to trial where a jury rendered a verdict fi…
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 Legal Cause cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals an adverse final judgment entered against her following a jury verdict finding the defendants not guilty of any negligence which was a legal cause of the accident in which she was injured.
The principal point on appeal is whether the trial court committed prejudicial error in refusing plaintiff’s requested jury instruction on intervening cause.
We have carefully considered all points raised by appellant in the light of the record, briefs and oral arguments and find that no reversible error has been demonstrated. The record discloses that the case was fully and fairly tried; that the verdict is supported by the evidence and that the several rulings of the trial court challenged by appellant did not, on the record and under the law constitute harmful error. Rawls v. Ziegler, Fla. 1958, 107 So. 2d 601; Anchor Hocking Corporation v. Allen, Fla. App.1964, 161 So. 2d 853; Stiles v. Calvetto, Fla.App.1962, 137 So. 2d 17; Maistrosky v. Harvey, Fla.App. 1961, 133 So. 2d 103; Karp v. Hodor, Fla.App.1964, 166 So. 2d 597; Gavin v. Headley, Fla.App.1973, 272 So. 2d 843; Thompson v. Jacobs, Fla.App. 1975, 314 So. 2d 797.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Rawls v. Ziegler, 107 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1958)
- Thompson v. Jacobs, 314 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Maistrosky v. Harvey, 133 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Stiles v. Calvetto, 137 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Sol Karp v. Hodor, 166 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Anchor Hocking Glass Corp. v. Allen, 161 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Gavin v. Duval A. Headley and Charles Edward Tudor, 272 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)