WRIGHT CARLTON, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
F. T. VAUX, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 judgment because the evidence did not sufficiently support the full amount of damages awarded, and the court could not determine a proper remittitur.
No, the evidence did not support the full amount of damages awarded. Because the evidence was lacking in essential particulars for estimating recoverable damages, the court could not determine a proper remittitur.
“In this case the evidence does not show liability of the defendant below for the entire amount of the damages recovered.”
Establishes the primary reason for reversal.
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, Wright Carlton, was awarded damages in a lower court against the defendant, F. T. Vaux. However, the evidence presented did not adequat…
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.
— In this case the evidence does not show liability of the defendant below for the entire amount of the damages recovered. Where the evidence does not show liability for the amount of damages awarded, and is so lacking in essential particulars that are reasonably appropriate for an estimate of the damages which might be recoverable from the defendant, that the court cannot with satisfactory certainty determine what would be a proper remittitur, the judgment must be reversed for a new trial. Southern Utilities Co. v. Davis, 83 Fla. 366, 92 So. 683; Plant City v. Muse, 71 Fla. 126; 70 So. 1005; A. C. L. R. Co. v. Brash, 73 Fla. 478, 74 So. 503.
*709Reversed.
Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell, J., concur.
Buford, C.J., and Brown, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Ellis, J., dissents.
dissenting: There is sufficient evidence to support the verdict as to Carlton’s liability as joint tort feasor.
Ellis, J.,
dissenting: There is sufficient evidence to support the verdict as to Carlton’s liability as joint tort feasor.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Suarez, 107 Fla. 705 (Fla. 1932)…f his damages. There is, however, an exception to the rule that where liability is shown but the damages not fully proved that the judgment will be affirmed on condition of remittitur. This exception is illustrated by such cases as Carlton v. Vaux, 102 Fla. 708, 136 Sou. Rep. 708, where it appeared that the evidence was so lacking in essential particulars that were reasonably appropriate for an estimate of the damages, that the Court could not determine with satisfactory certainty what would have been a pr…
Authorities Cited
- S. Utils. Co. v. Davis, 83 Fla. 366 (Fla. 1922)
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Brash, 73 Fla. 478 (Fla. 1917)
- City of Plant City v. Muse, 71 Fla. 126 (Fla. 1916)