CHARLES RAY TIDWELL, SR., AS NATURAL FATHER AND GUARDIAN OF CHARLES RAY TIDWELL, JR., A MINOR, AND CHARLES RAY TIDWELL, SR., INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
WILLIAM H. TOCA, YOLANDA TOCA, AND ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
The court held that a jury verdict is not inconsistent when it awards damages without finding liability, especially when the verdict form was not objected to.
Plaintiffs suffered a jury verdict against them, finding them 100% negligent and awarding damages to the injured party and his father. The verdict was…
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 Special Interrogatories cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiffs suffered a jury verdict against them and appeal the final judgment upon a claim that the jury was inconsistent. The verdict was upon special interrogatories, as follows:
“1. What percentage of negligence, if any, do you find that WILLIAM H. TOCA, was guilty of in causing this accident?
%_0_
2. What percentage of negligence, if any, do you find that CHARLES RAY TIDWELL, JUNIOR, was guilty of in causing this accident?
% 100
3. What is the total amount of damages, if any, that you find CHARLES RAY TIDWELL, JR., has sustained as a direct and proximate result of the accident?
$4.500.00
4. What is the total amount of damages, if any, you find, that CHARLES RAY TIDWELL, SR. as natural father and guardian of CHARLES RAY TID-WELL, JR. has sustained as a direct and proximate result of the accident?
$3.500.00
SO SAY WE ALL”
We hold that the verdict is not inconsistent under the rule stated in Crawford v. DiMicco, 216 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968). A party may not complain of a verdict form to which he does not object. It is clear that in the instant case, the verdict as submitted permitted a finding of an amount of damages without a finding of liability for the damages.
Appellants’ reliance upon this court’s decision in Sweeney v. Wiggins, 350 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), is misplaced since that case concerned a verdict which was clearly improper and was rejected by the trial court.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Robbins v. Graham, 404 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…ues of a constitutional or fundamental character. Objections to the form of the verdict, under these facts, must be timely made and failure to object resulted in a waiver by appellee. See Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Price, supra; Tidwell v. Toca, 362 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Lindquist v. Covert, 279 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Judge of Circuit Court, supra. Errors of form, where the intent of the jury is otherwise clear, should be raised on the spot, notwithstand…
-
C. A. Davis, Inc. v. City OF Miami, 400 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…r objected to the special verdict form (omitting its name) which was presented to the jury. Therefore, INA may not now be heard to complain that the verdict was improper or that judgment should not have been entered against it. See: Tidwell v. Toca, 362 So. 2d 85 (Fla.3d DCA 1978). As to the cross appeal, it was error to prevent the City from amending its counterclaim, specifically to state its claim for delay, some seven months prior to the trial and where such an amendment would have caused no prejudice o…
-
K-Mart Corp. v. Collins, 707 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (order granting new trial reversed because any [*755] doubt as to jury’s intent was dispelled by polling of jury, and counsel waived issue regarding verdict form by failing to timely object in trial court); Tidwell v. Toca, 362 So. 2d 85, 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (“A party may not complain of a verdict form to which he does not object.”), cert. denied, 368 So. 2d 1375 (Fla.1979). We note that in Springer v. Arthur of Cedarhurst, Inc., 424 So. 2d 175, 176 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), the court s…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Crawford v. DiMICCO, 216 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)
- Sweeney v. Lorene Wiggins & Allstate Ins. Co., 350 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)