Leake v. Watkins
| Decision Date | 07 March 1917 |
| Citation | 73 Fla. 596,74 So. 652 |
| Parties | LEAKE v. WATKINS. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Orange County; F. A. Whitney, Judge.
Action by Belle Leake against T. J. Watkins. Judgment for defendant and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Where the charges given accord with the evidence and the law applicable thereto, and there is ample evidence to sustain the verdict, technical errors, if any, in giving or refusing instructions to the jury, or in other proceedings, will not cause a reversal of the judgment, no material errors appearing.
COUNSEL Dickinson & Dickinson, of Orlando, for plaintiff in error.
Massey & Warlow, of Orlando, for defendant in error.
The plaintiff in error brought an action against Watkins to recover damages for alleged injuries to her right eye charged to have been caused by dust from 'a quantity of brick, dirt, and dust' which the defendant's servants permitted to fall near her while they were repairing the building in which she was employed. Trial was had on a plea of not guilty. Verdict and judgment were rendered for the defendant, and the plaintiff took writ of error.
A contract between the defendant and R. W. Logan for doing the repair work was admitted in evidence over the defendant's objection. The contract had some relevancy to the question whether the defendant was liable for the acts of the persons who were doing the repairing, and its admission in evidence was not error.
The plaintiff requested charges, stating in effect that if the defendant undertook to make improvements in his building under an agreement with the tenant to make such improvements the defendant owes a duty to such tenant and its employés in said building, to see that the improvements be done in such manner as not to injure the employés by negligence, and that the defendant under such circumstances could not relieve himself from responsibility and liability to the tenant and employés for negligence in doing the work, by delegating such work to an independent contractor under his employment. These requested instructions were refused. At the request of the plaintiff the court gave the following charge:
'If you find from the evidence in this cause that the defendant, T. J. Watkins, gave instructions to the contractor or his employés, as to the manner and method of removing the brick, over the doorway in the front part of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jones
...admitted testimony and does not reach the legality of the trial itself. Dixon v. State, 79 Fla. 586, 84 So. 541 (1920); Leake v. Watkins, 73 Fla. 596, 74 So. 652 (1917). Precedent and common sense dictate that we recede from Robles. The primary goal of the judicial system is to seek the tru......
-
Fain v. Cartwright
... ... instructions to the jury will not cause a reversal of the ... judgment, no material errors appearing. Leake v ... [132 Fla. 865] Watkins, 73 Fla. 596, 74 So. 652; See ... McDanied v. State, 103 Fla. 529, 137 So. 702; ... Graham v. Gill, 56 Fla. 316, 47 ... ...
-
Ashley v. Ocean Roc Motel, Inc.
...and there was ample evidence to support the verdict, errors in refusing to give instructions will not warrant reversal. Leake v. Watkins, 73 Fla. 596, 74 So. 652 (1917); see Hill v. Sadler, 186 So.2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 192 So.2d 487 We find the error raised as to the jury instr......
-
Shockey v. State
...the fact did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial. Cf. Damico v. State, 153 Fla. 850, 16 So.2d 43 (1943); and see Leake v. Watkins, 73 Fla. 596, 74 So. 652 (1917). In addition, the objection made on this appeal, but not at trial, to the effect that the court failed to read that portion......