Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Gibson
| Decision Date | 12 November 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 69-146,69-146 |
| Parties | CHANDLER LEASING CORPORATION, a Massachusetts corporation, Coca Cola Bottling Company of Miami, a Florida corporation and Harrison M. Ross, Jr., Appellants, v. Rosina GIBSON and Nathan Gibson, her husband, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Wicker, Smith, Pyszka, Blomqvist & Davant, Miami, for appellants.
Spence, Payne & Masington and Podhurst & Orseck, Miami, for appellees.
Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.
The appellants were the defendants below and appeal from a final judgment rendered after a jury verdict for the plaintiffs in a negligence suit.
Defendants claim reversible error was committed by permitting plaintiffs to offer testimony of an expert witness that did not rebut any new matter brought out during the presentation of the evidence for the defendants.
We have carefully reviewed the record and find that the trial judge, in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, could have determined that the questioned testimony was in rebuttal of new matter brought out during the presentation of the evidence of the defendants. We find no abuse of sound judicial discretion by the trial judge in this claim for reversal. See Driscoll v. Morris, Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 314.
Defendant's second point is that the trial court erred in denying a motion for new trial or remittitur because the award to the husband, Nathan Gibson, was so excessive that it had to be based upon passion, prejudice or a total disregard of the evidence and should shock the judicial conscience.
Plaintiffs concede that the verdict of Seventy-Eight Thousand Dollars was a 'good verdict for the plaintiff husband' but argue that no passion, prejudice or sympathy on the part of the jury has been demonstrated and that there is competent, substantial evidence in the record to sustain the verdict.
Without detailing the testimony and evidence we find that the jury verdict and final judgment for the plaintiff husband were supported by substantial, competent evidence and that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for new trial, or remittitur. See Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Robinson, Fla.1953, 68 So.2d 406; Breeding's Dania Drug Co. v. Runyon, 1941, 147 Fla. 123, 2 So.2d 376; Talcott v. Holl, Fla.App.1969, 224 So.2d 420; and Bach v. Miami Transit Co., Fla.App.1961, 129 So.2d 706, cert. denied, Fla.1961, 133 So.2d 322.
Finally, defendants seek...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Insurance Co. of North America v. Pasakarnis, 80-1895
...error at all, could have been no more than harmless.3 Other Florida cases which discuss the subject are Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Gibson, 227 So.2d 889 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969), which noted that the issue had not been raised in the pleadings (and pointed out that the defendants would have been me......
-
Ridley v. Safety Kleen Corp.
...would have sustained less serious injuries had he been wearing his seat belt at time of collision); Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Gibson, 227 So.2d 889, 890 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969) (holding where contributory negligence was not pleaded and no instructions on issue of contributory negligence in faili......
-
Insurance Co. of North America v. Pasakarnis, 63312
...rather than the courts to resolve. See also Paschal v. Pinkard, 228 So.2d 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969). In Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Gibson, 227 So.2d 889 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969), defendants sought reversal of a judgment on the basis that the trial judge had erred in not permitting argument to the ju......
-
Lincoln v. Miggins, 70--955
...the merits, or operated wholly upon speculation, a jury award will not be upset on appeal. See generally Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Gibson, Fla.App.1969, 227 So.2d 889, 890 and cases cited. It is our view, based upon a consideration of the record, that the jury's award on the derivative clai......