Dowling v. Loftin
| Citation | 72 So.2d 283 |
| Parties | DOWLING v. LOFTIN et al. (three cases). YELVINGTON v. LOFTIN et al. CLARK v. LOFTIN et al. (three cases). |
| Decision Date | 20 April 1954 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Harry B. Fozzard and Tom B. Stewart, Jr., Jacksonville, for appellants.
Russell L. Frink and Samuel Kassewitz, Jacksonville, for appellees.
This is an appeal growing out of a horrible railroad crossing accident which resulted in the death of a man, his wife, and their four infant children.
Voluminous testimony was taken with reference to the scene of the accident and pertinent facts in connection therewith. No good purpose can be served by a recital of these details and facts testified to. It is sufficient to say that all questions were submitted to the jury and the jury found a verdict of not guilty. There was abundant substantial evidence supporting the verdict.
Motion for new trial was denied by the trial judge The findings of the jury, reviewed by the trial judge, will not be disturbed on appeal when there is any substantial evidence to support the verdict unless the assignments of error pinpoint some error of the trial judge in the instructions to the jury or in admitting, or rejecting, testimony which resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
The record in this case contains fifteen assignments of error, most of which are concerning the giving, or failure to give, instructions or charges to the jury.
The record discloses that an entire afternoon was devoted, by the trial judge and the attorneys for the respective parties, in going over and discussing requested charges. The next day, after the Court had charged the jury, the Court addressed the attorneys for the parties and asked the question, 'Is there anything else you can suggest?' The only suggestion from anyone was from one of the attorneys for the appellants when he said, 'I don't recall you giving the charge on the burden of proof or contributory negligence'. The Court then further instructed the jury. No further request, or objection, of any kind appears in the record until long after the motion for new trial had been denied when attorneys for the appellants then contended that objections had been made to various charges and their objections were not in the record and that they had made a general objection to all of the charges, that they were repetitious and such repetition unduly stressed certain matters prejudicial to the appellants. 30 F.S.A. Rules of Common Law, Rule 39(b) on the subject of charges to the jury is full and complete.
A hearing was held on motion to supplement the record. This motion was granted and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
A. M. Kidder & Co. v. Turner
...the whole charge, was erroneous and harmful as well.' See also Prior v. Pounds, 1934, 113 Fla. 308, 151 So. 890, 892; Dowling v. Loftin, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 283, 285. The two charges given but objected to, when considered in the context of the entire charge, are not harmful or erroneous and ......
-
Montgomery v. Stary
...that the trial court erred in refusing to give certain requested charges. We have examined the charge given as a whole, Dowling v. Loftin, Fla., 72 So.2d 283, and find that it adequately covers the law relevant to the issues in this case. There is no These are extremely difficult cases, and......
-
Grimm v. Prudence Mut. Cas. Co.
...singled out for attack will avail the appellant nothing. Miami Transit Co. v. Dalton, 156 Fla. 485, 23 So.2d 572 (1945); Dowling v. Loftin, 72 So.2d 283 (Fla.1954); General Ready-Mixed Concrete v. Wheeler, 55 So.2d 331 (Fla.1951); Staff v. Soreno Hotel Co., 60 So.2d 28 (Fla.1952); Martin v.......
-
Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Lawler, 62-498
...reversal. See Miami Transit Co. v. Dalton, 156 Fla. 485, 23 So.2d 572; Martin v. Stone, Fla.1951, 51 So.2d 33, 37; Dowling v. Loftin, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 283, 285; Martin v. Makris, Fla.App.1958, 101 So.2d 172, There remains the contention of appellant that a new trial should have been grant......