HOWARD YACKER, APPELLANT,
v.
JAY TEITCH AND MURIEL TEITCH, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES; JAY TEITCH, APPELLANT, V. HOWARD YACKER, APPELLEE
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.
This consolidated defamation appeal addresses whether a judgment non obstante veredicto (JNOV) in favor of one defendant was proper, and whether jury instructions on slander per se, damages, and qualified privilege were adequate. The court affirmed the judgment, upholding both the JNOV and the jury instructions.
The court affirmed the JNOV in favor of Muriel Teitch as proper under controlling law, and held that the jury instructions, when viewed as a whole, fairly presented the law to the jury without reversible error.
[1] A judgment notwithstanding the verdict should be granted only when, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, a jury could not reasonably…
[2] Jury instructions must be viewed in light of the evidence presented, and reversible error can only be ascertained if the jury was confused or deceived.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict should be resolved with extreme caution since the granting thereof holds that one side of the case is essentially devoid of probative evidence”
Establishes the heightened standard for granting a JNOV
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHoward Yacker brought a defamation action against Jay Teitch and his wife Muriel Teitch based on remarks the defendants made about child molesting. A …
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 Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
These are consolidated appeals from a final judgment on a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff in a defamation of character action stemming from remarks made by the. defendants about child molesting.
In the first appeal, the successful plaintiff, Howard Yacker, contends that the trial court erred in ruling that defendant, Muriel Teitch, the wife of defendant, Jay Teitch, is not liable to the plaintiff, and in entering a judgment non obstante veredicto in her favor. The entry of a judgment non ob-stante veredicto should be tested by the rules applicable to motions for directed verdicts, for such judgment is essentially an order granting a motion for a directed verdict during trial except that the judgment is made after the jury has returned the verdict. A motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict should be resolved with extreme caution since the granting thereof holds that one side of the case is essentially devoid of probative evidence. Macrellis v. George, Fla.App.1967, 202 So. 2d 107. As this court stated in Florida Tomato Packers, Inc. v. Wilson, Fla.App. 1974, 296 So. 2d 536, 540:
“Motions for directed verdict, judgments in accordance with motion for directed verdict upon which ruling has been, withheld, and judgments n. o. v., .all share the following rules relating to their disposition by the trial court, and, on review, by an appellate court. Such motions should be cautiously granted and affirmed, and then only when it can be said, after viewing the evidence and testimony in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, that a jury could not reasonably differ as to the credibility of the witnesses, or the existence of a material fact or a material inference, and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. E. g., McCabe v. Watson, Fla.App.1969, 225 So. 2d 346, cert, den., Fla.1970, 232 So. 2d 739;” (further citations omitted)
In accordance with the foregoing' principles of law, we are of the opinion that the judgment non obstante veredicto in favor of Muriel Teitch was properly granted and that no reversible error has been demonstrated in this respect.
In the second appeal, defendant Jay Teitch contends that the trial court erred in its charge to the jury on slander per se and on damages and in refusing to charge the jury on qualified privilege. Jury instructions must be viewed in light of the evidence before reversible error can be ascertained. If it appears that the jury has not been confused or deceived, the judgment must be affirmed. Stewart v. Drawdy, Fla.App.1973, 277 So. 2d 803. In determining whether a specific instruction is erroneous, it should be considered with all the other instructions given, and the pleadings and evidence in the case. Staicer v. Hall, Fla.App.1961, 130 So. 2d 113. The proper test is whether the charge as a whole adequately presents the law upon the issues. Busser v. Sabatasso, Fla.App.1962, 143 So. 2d 532. In passing on a single instruction, it is to be judged in the light of all other instructions given, bearing upon the same subject and if when so judged, the law appears to have been fairly presented to the jury, an assignment of error based on the challenged instruction cannot prevail. Staicer v. Hall, supra. We have considered the instructions challenged by Teitch in the context of the entirety of the court’s charge to the jury. In our opinion, the court gave the jury a fair presentation of the law.
Accordingly, the final judgment herein appealed is affirmed as to the plaintiff and the defendants.
PEARSON, Judge
(dissenting).
I would reverse and remand for a new trial upon the ground that the court erred in refusing to charge on the qualified privilege doctrine and in giving the charge that malice was to be presumed under the circumstances of this case. See Abraham v. Baldwin, 52 Fla. 151, 42 So. 591 (1906).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Denis Rety v. Green, 546 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…2d 1334 (Fla.1986). . Underwriters at LaConcorde v. Airtech Serv., Inc., 468 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), quashed on other grounds, 493 So. 2d 428 (Fla.1986); Seaboard Coastline R.R. v. Addison, 481 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Yacker v. Teitch, 330 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Moreover, under the "two issue” rule, it is impossible to demonstrate any prejudice in this technical error because (a) the jury could have found Southern Commodity Corporation vicariously responsible for Green’s defamatory lette…
-
Giordano v. Nelson Ramirez, M.D., 503 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…the instruction given as a whole, together with the verdict form and in light of the evidence presented. See Grimm v. Prudence Mut. Cos. Co., 243 So. 2d 140, 143 (Fla.1971); LaTorre, 498 So. 2d at 456; Gallagher, 346 So. 2d at 97; Yacker v. Teitch, 330 So. 2d 828, 830 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). An additional instruction regarding appellant’s third party beneficiary status was not necessary in this case. The jury was clearly charged that it could award damages to appellant if the health care contract was breached.…
-
Llompart v. Lavecchia, 374 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…ered in other charges given by the court or where failure to give the instruction is not shown to be prejudicial. See Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Lawler, 151 So. 2d 852 (Fla.3d DCA 1963); see also the principles of law in Yacker v. Teitch, 330 So. 2d 828 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); Menard v. O’Malley, 327 So. 2d 905 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); and see City of Jacksonville v. Vaughn, 92 Fla. 339, 110 So. 529 (1926). In making this determination, the right of a party to have the jury instructed from the law applicable…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Abraham v. Baldwin, 52 Fla. 151 (Fla. 1906)
- McCABE v. Watson, 225 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Fla. Tomato Packers, Inc. v. Wilson, 296 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Staicer v. Hall, 130 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Watson v. McCABE, 232 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 1970)
- Penuel v. Cent. Crane Serv., 232 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 1970)
- Busser v. Sabatasso, 143 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- MacRellis v. George, 202 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)
- Stewart v. Drawdy, 277 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)