Higbee v. Dorigo
| Decision Date | 28 July 1953 |
| Citation | 66 So.2d 684 |
| Parties | HIGBEE et ux. v. DORIGO. HOTEL RUNNYMEDE, Inc. v. DORIGO. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Fleming, O'Bryan & Fleming, Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.
Padgett & Teasley, Miami and Durward DeMar, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
These appeals are brought by the plaintiffs below from judgments entered in personal injury actions growing out of the collision of two automobiles on the public highway.
Everett J. Higbee was driving a car owned by Hotel Runnymede, Inc., a New Jersey corporation. Carolyn R. Higbee was riding as a passenger in the front seat of the car which her husband was operating. One Werner Dorigo negligently drove his car into the rear of the car being driven by Higbee.
Higbee and wife sued Dorigo to recover damages for physical injuries. Hotel Runnymede, Inc., sued to recover damages for damage to the automobile. The cases were consolidated for trial.
After the evidence was in and the jury had been charged in respect to the applicable law of the case, the trial judge submitted various printed forms to the jury for use by them in registering their verdicts.
In due course the jury returned into open court with the following verdict in the case of Hotel Runnymede, Inc., v. Dorigo:
'We, the Jury, find for the plaintiff Hotel Runnymede, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation, and against the defendant Werner Dorigo, and assess its damages in the sum of 800.00 Dollars.'
In the case of Higbee and wife v. Dorigo, the jury returned the following verdicts:
'We, the Jury, find for the plaintiff Everett J. Higbee and against the defendant Werner Dorigo, and assess his damages in the sum of $750.00 Dollars; we further find for the plaintiff Carolyn R. Higbee and against the defendant Werner Dorigo, and assess her damages in the sum of None Dollars * * *;' and
'We, the Jury find for the defendant Werner Dorigo in the case of Carolyn R. Higbee v. Werner Dorigo * * *.'
No objection was made by either party to the form of the verdicts returned in the case of Everett J. Higbee and Carolyn R. Higbee v. Werner Dorigo. Therefore, any defect as to form was waived; and inasmuch as there is evidenced a plain intention on the part of the jury that Mrs. higbee should have no recovery, or that no damages allowed plaintiffs in the suit should be apportioned to her claim, we think that the verdicts must be considered as constituting a sufficient predicate for the rendition of the judgment in favor of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. McKelvey
...compensation for future humiliation, pain, and suffering. S. A. Freel Distributing Co. v. Lenox, 147 Fla. 550, 3 So.2d 157; Higbee v. Dorigo, Fla.1953, 66 So.2d 684; Merwin v. Kellems, Fla.1955, 78 So.2d 865; Sproule v. Nelson, supra; Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Stewart, supra; Si......
-
Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Clay
...the same damages to children of different ages--resulted in a waiver of its ability to make the argument on appeal. See Higbee v. Dorigo, 66 So.2d 684 (Fla.1953); Wiggs & Maale Construction Co. v. Harris, 348 So.2d 914 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Lindquist v. Covert, 279 So.2d 44 (Fla. 4th DCA 197......
-
Cowart v. Kendall United Methodist Church
...Covert, 279 So.2d 44 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); Wiggs & Maale Construction Co. v. Harris, 348 So.2d 914 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); see Higbee v. Dorigo, 66 So.2d 684 (Fla.1953). We held in Savoca that, because plaintiffs' counsel not only did not request resubmission, but successfully resisted defendan......
-
Tricam Indus., Inc. v. Coba
...party must object to defective verdict forms or inconsistent verdicts before the jury is discharged to preserve the claim, Higbee v. Dorigo, 66 So.2d 684 (Fla.1953); Papcun v. Piggy Bag Discount Souvenirs Food and Gas Corp., 472 So.2d 880 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Here, however, the inconsistenc......
-
The two-issue rule and itemized verdicts: walking the tightrope.
...before the jury is discharged, any defect or inconsistency is waived. See Nix v. Summitt, 52 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 1951); Higbee v. Dorigo, 66 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 1953); Moorman v. American Safety Equip., 594 So. 2d 795, 799 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1992); Southeastern Income Properties v. Terrell, 587 So.......