Dock & Marine Const. Corp. v. Parrino, 67--513
| Decision Date | 28 May 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 67--513,67--513 |
| Citation | 211 So.2d 57 |
| Parties | DOCK & MARINE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Joseph D. PARRINO and Marjorie I. Parrino, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert M. Riddle, Miami, for appellant.
Talburt, Kubicki, Carruthers & Garrett, Miami, for appellees.
Before CHARLES CARROLL, C.J., and BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.
This appeal is by the defendant below from an adverse judgment in the amount of $7,500 based on a jury verdict.
The plaintiffs were owners of property fronting on a canal. Some six days after the defendant, with the use of pile driving equipment, removed the seawall at the canal frontage of an adjacent lot, the plaintiffs' seawall collapsed. The plaintiffs' complaint and the judgment were on the basis and theory that in removing the seawall on the adjacent property the defendant proceeded in a negligent manner which proximately caused the collapse of plaintiffs' seawall.
At the trial the defendant moved for directed verdict at the close the plaintiffs' case and again at the close of all of the evidence. After verdict the defendant moved for judgment in accordance with its motion for directed verdict, and moved for new trial. Denial of those motions was assigned as error.
We have considered the appellant's contention that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment, and find it to be without merit. On the evidence presented the jury was entitled to find in favor of the plaintiffs on the questions of negligence and causation.
We have considered also the contention of the appellant that the verdict was induced by passion and prejudice. In our view the record does not furnish a basis for sustaining that contention.
We find merit in the argument of the appellant which challenges the order taxing costs against the defendant, which order was entered subsequent to the judgment and after the judgment had been paid and satisfied. Section 57--041 entitled 'Costs; recovery from losing party,' provides as follows:
'(1) The party recovering judgment shall recover all his legal costs and charges which shall be included in the judgment; but this section does not apply to executors or administrators in actions when they are not liable for costs.
'(2) Costs may be collected by execution on the judgment or order assessing costs.'
Section 701.04 Fla.Stat., F.S.A. provides that 'whenever the amount of money due on any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wallach v. Rosenberg, 87-608
...to submit the issue of negligence to the jury. See Van Dusen v. Dobson, 457 So.2d 1062 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Dock & Marine Constr. Corp. v. Parrino, 211 So.2d 57 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968) (evidence was sufficient for jury to find for plaintiff whose sea wall collapsed because adjacent sea wall was r......
-
B & L Motors, Inc. v. Bignotti
...order awarding attorney's fees, the court no longer had jurisdiction in the case to make the award, citing Dock & Marine Construction Corp. v. Parrino, 211 So.2d 57 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). Dock does hold that "the payment and satisfaction of the judgment ... precluded the subsequent entry of an......
-
Bialkowicz v. Pan Am. Condominium No. 3, Inc.
...was entitled to find against this defendant on the essential questions of negligence and causation. See Dock and Marine Construction Corp. v. Parrino, Fla.App. 1968, 211 So.2d 57. Moses Hersman urges that the trial court erred when it held him as a joint tortfeasor, contending that his stat......
-
Morris North American, Inc. v. King
...over, the dispute is settled, the account is paid. Doubtless, it was this principle which led the court in Dock & Marine Construction Corp. v. Parrino, 211 So.2d 57 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), to vacate a cost award which had been entered after the entry of a satisfaction of In that case the final ......