JACK HUESTIS, APPELLANT,
v.
BLUE RIBBON LAUNDRY, INC., A FLORIDA 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.
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the jury's verdict, but also that an erroneous jury instruction warranted a new trial.
Plaintiff appealed a judgment entered after the trial court set aside a jury verdict and directed a verdict in favor of the defendant. The trial court…
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 Erroneous Jury Instruction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, appeals a final judgment entered after an order setting aside a jury verdict and directing a verdict in appellee’s favor. In the alternative, the trial court granted a new trial because of the giving of an erroneous instruction in the event he was in error in directing a verdict.
We reverse the order granting the directed verdict, because there was evidence or a reasonable inference therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, to sustain a plaintiff’s jury verdict. See: Brookbank v. Mathieu, 152 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963); Whitman v. Red Top Sedan Service, Inc., 218 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); Mathis v. Lambert, 274 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973).
We do agree that the trial judge was correct in granting a new trial because of the giving of an erroneous instruction. See: Dade Underwriters Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Azif, 202 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967); Shank v. Fassoulas, 304 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Castlewood International Corporation v. LaFleur, 322 So. 2d 520 (Fla.1976); Florida Rules Civil Procedure 1.530(d).
Therefore, the final judgment for the defendant in the trial court is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial on all the issues.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part, with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ashcroft v. Calder Race Course, Inc., 464 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…already granted a new trial and, accordingly, I would affirm that order upon a finding that the jury verdict was predicated upon and tainted by the erroneous instruction. A new trial is therefore warranted. See Huestis v. Blue Ribbon Laundry, Inc., 364 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). A trial court’s order based upon an erroneous ground will be affirmed if appellate review discloses an alternative theory supporting its entry. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1979); Petrulli v. App…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Castlewood Int'l Corp. v. LaFLEUR, 322 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1975)
- Whitman v. RED TOP Sedan Serv., Inc., 218 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Mathis v. Adolphus L. Lambert, 274 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Brookbank v. Mathieu, 152 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Shank v. Konstantinos Ioannis Fassoulas, 304 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Dade Underwriters Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Azif, 202 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)