Fejer v. Whitehall Laboratories, Inc., 65-320
| Decision Date | 08 February 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 65-320,65-320 |
| Citation | 182 So.2d 438 |
| Parties | Gabriele FEJER and Stefan Fejer, her husband, Appellants, v. WHITEHALL LABORATORIES, INC., a corporation doing business In Florida, and Surfside Drugs Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Highsmith & Ezzo, Miami, for appellants.
Dixon, DeJarnette, Bradford, Williams, McKay & Kimbrell and Joseph W. Womack, Miami, for appellees.
Before HENDRY, C. J., and TILLMAN PEARSON and CARROLL, JJ.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff, STEFAN FEJER, from a final judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict in an action for damages for personal injuries sustained by his wife, GABRIELE FEJER.
The alleged injuries were sustained after application of the product, 'Heet', which is manufactured by the defendant Whitehall Laboratories, Inc. and was sold to the plaintiff-husband by the defendant, Surfside Drugs, Inc. Following a trial of the cause, the jury returned the following verdict:
'We, the jury, find for the plaintiff GABRIELE FEJER and assess her damages in the sum of Seventeen Hundred ($1,700.00) Dollars and for the plaintiff STEFAN FEJER in the sum of No ($0.00) Dollars so say we, all.'
Subsequently the plaintiff-husband moved for a new trial on the issue of damages only claiming that the verdict was defective in that liability was determined in favor of the plaintiff and his damages were assessed at No Dollars although he had proven damages in the form of doctors, medicine and transportation expenses together with a showing of future medical expenses and the loss of his wife's society and companionship. The trial judge denied this motion.
Plaintiff-husband's contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in refusing to grant a new trial on the issue of his damages. We agree with this contention. An examination of the record supports the claim that the husband has suffered some damages, even if only the medical bills are considered. Further, the wife did not request nor did she attempt to prove that such damages should be awarded to her; and, the trial court properly instructed the jury on the issue of damages.
It follows that the judgment appealed from should be reversed and a new trial awarded on the question of plaintiff-husband's damages only. 1
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cowart v. Kendall United Methodist Church
...Rederi A/S v. Cowden, 447 So.2d 1017 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Kinne v. Burgin, 311 So.2d 695 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Fejer v. Whitehall Laboratories, Inc., 182 So.2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Thieneman v. Cameron, 126 So.2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961); Stroud v. Govreau, 495 S.W.2d 682 (Mo.1973); Lewis v. ......
-
Haskins v. Fairfield Elec. Co-op.
...it is error for the trial judge to refuse to grant a new trial on the issue of the wife's damages. See Fejer v. Whitehall Laboratories, Inc., 182 So.2d 438 (Fla.App.1966). The record supports Mrs. Haskins' claim of injury. She testified of her fear that her husband would die and of the grea......
-
Vega v. Mahfuz, 78-1201
...Fire Insurance Co., 119 So.2d 49 (Fla.1960); Coppola v. Ballard, 314 So.2d 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); and Fejer v. Whitehall Laboratories, Inc., 182 So.2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). Compare Webber v. Jordan, 366 So.2d 51 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). We note that it is not the form of the verdict which is b......
-
Grant v. Williams
...to set aside the determination of the jury as to the plaintiff, Elizabeth A. Williams.' In a recent case, Fejer v. Whitehall Laboratories, Inc., Fla.App.1966, 182 So.2d 438, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial of a new trial on the question of the husband's ......