MAMIE B. YOUNG, APPELLANT,
v.
PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, 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.
Affirmed judgment in slip and fall case where plaintiff's general objection to supplemental jury charge was insufficient to preserve error because she failed to explicitly object that the standard charge was adequate or to comply with procedural requirements for challenging jury instructions.
A general objection to a supplemental jury charge without explicit objection that the standard charge was adequate or without compliance with Form 1.985, R.C.P., is insufficient to preserve error.
[1] A general objection to a supplemental jury instruction without explicit objection that the standard charge is adequate or without compliance with Form 1.985, R.C.P., is i…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff appealed from an adverse judgment in a slip and fall case where the trial court supplemented the standard jury instructions recommended in F…
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 Slip And Fall Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appealing from an adverse judgment entered on a jury verdict, plaintiff complains that the trial court supplemented the jury charges recommended for slip and fall cases in Florida Standard Jury Instructions-Civil by elaborating, as requested by defendant, on one aspect of the issues posed by charge 3.5f. The record does not reveal the specific ground of plaintiff’s objection to the additional charge. Had plaintiff explicitly objected that the recommended standard charge accurately and adequately covers the subject, the trial judge would have had had an opportunity to comply with Form 1.985, R.C.P., by stating “on the record or in a separate order” wherein he conceived that the standard form was “erroneous or inadequate and the legal basis of his finding.” For aught that appears, plaintiff complained only that the supplemental statement was incorrect as a matter of abstract law, which it was not. The general objection made by plaintiff was insufficient to preserve the error asserted here. Henningsen v. Smith, 174 So. 2d 85 (Fla.App.2nd, 1965); DuPuis v. 79th Street Hotel, Inc., 231 So. 2d 532 (Fla.App.3rd, 1970), cert. den. 238 So. 2d 105 (Fla.1970).
AFFIRMED.
BOYER, C. J., SMITH, J., and HODGES, JOHN G., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- DuPUIS v. 79TH St. Hotel, Inc., 231 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Henningsen v. Smith, 174 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Hendrix v. State, 238 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 1970)
- Butler v. Elec. Commc'ns, Inc., 238 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 1970)