Bailey v. Sympson
| Decision Date | 22 January 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 62-308,62-308 |
| Citation | 148 So.2d 729 |
| Parties | Elmer Dean BAILEY, Appellant, v. Glenn Ray SYMPSON, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Smith, Poole & Pahules and Jesse D. Henry, Miami, for appellant.
Eldon L. Boyce and Fred Patrox, Miami, for appellee.
Before PEARSON, TILLMAN, C. J., and BARKDULL and HENDRY, JJ.
Elmer Dean Bailey was the defendant in the trial court to an action brought by Glenn Ray Sympson for personal injuries caused when defendant's car struck the rear of plaintiff's car. The defendant admitted liability and trial was had upon the issue of damages. The plaintiff and his physician were the only witnesses heard. The jury assessed the plaintiff's damages at $620.00. Final judgment in this amount was entered on the jury verdict.
Plaintiff moved for a new trial which the trial judge granted 'on grounds 1, 2 and 12 of the grounds set forth in the Plaintiff's Motion for a New Trial.' The grounds referred to in the order are as follows: '(1) That the verdict is contrary to the evidence; (2) That the verdict is contrary to law; (12) That the verdict is such as that would stock the conscience of the Court.'
The appellant urges that the verdict finds support in the record and that nothing can be accomplished by a new trial except to have another jury pass upon the amount of damages.
We find from our study of the record that the real issue before the jury was the extent and effect of the plaintiff's injury. If the jury had accepted the testimony of the plaintiff and his physician as to the extent and effect of the injury, a much larger judgment would in all probability have been rendered. However, a jury in a personal injury action can properly accept or reject portions of a party's testimony and medical evidence. Chomont v. Ward, Fla.1958, 103 So.2d 635; Goldstein v. Walters, Fla.App.1961, 126 So.2d 759. Further, it has not been made to appear that the verdict rendered was the result of bias or prejudice, or that the jury was influenced by anything other than the testimony and the charges of the court. Therefore, we determine that there is nothing in the record to indicate that the verdict is contrary to the evidence or that it is contrary to law.
We turn now to the question of that ground of the motion for a new trial which asserts that the verdict is such that it would shock the conscience of the court. The appellee argues that the trial court's holding that it was shocked by the verdict is unassailable regardless of the record. In this regard it should be noted that the trial judge's order was entered after the publication of the opinion of the Supreme...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marks v. Delcastillo
...(applying rule that trier of fact may accept some parts and reject others of the testimony of a particular witness); Bailey v. Sympson, 148 So.2d 729 (Fla.3d DCA 1963) (same). Thus, the defendants' own case provided sufficient ground for a conclusion that no signs were present. (c) For prec......
-
Ullman v. City of Tampa Parks Dept.
...to accept or reject the testimony of a medical expert just as it may accept or reject that of any other expert. See Bailey v. Sympson, (Fla. DCA 3rd, 1963) 148 So.2d 729; Ingle v. Cochran, (Fla. DCA 1st, 1963) 151 So.2d 63, and Goldstein v. Walters, (Fla. DCA 2nd, 1961) 126 So.2d 759. This ......
-
Mansell v. Eidge
...v. Bennett, fla.App.1960, 124 So.2d 307; Sandford v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Company, Fla.App.1962, 139 So.2d 916; Bailey v. Sympson, fla.App.1963, 148 So .2d 729; Cobb v. Brew, supra; Gibson v. Frierson, Fla.App.1963, 159 So.2d 117; Rosenfeld v. Glickstein, Fla.App.1964, 159 So.2d 670; Dup......
-
Shaw v. Puleo
...to accept or reject the testimony of a medical expert just as it may accept or reject that of any other expert. See Bailey v. Sympson, (Fla. DCA 3rd, 1963) 148 So.2d 729; Ingle v. Cochran, (Fla. DCA 1st, 1963) 151 So.2d 63, and Goldstein v. Walters, (Fla. DCA 2nd, 1961) 126 So.2d 759. This ......