Lynx Transp. v. Atkinson
Citation | 720 So.2d 600 |
Decision Date | 30 October 1998 |
Docket Number | No. 98-661,98-661 |
Parties | 23 Fla. L. Weekly D2434 LYNX TRANSPORTATION, etc., Appellant, v. Michael ATKINSON, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Janice L. Merrill and Reginald D. Hicks of Perry & Hicks, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.
R. Lee Dorough, Orlando, for Appellee.
Lynx Transportation appeals a final judgment after a jury found that it was responsible for injuries received by Michael Atkinson in a bus-automobile accident. Lynx argues on appeal that the trial court erred when it instructed the jury that a rebuttable presumption of negligence was created when the Lynx bus hit the rear of Atkinson's automobile. Lynx correctly states that the presumption exists when the trial court considers a motion for directed verdict, but when the motion is denied and the matter is submitted to the jury, the jury must deliberate without the aid of the presumption and must determine whether Lynx was negligent from all of the evidence presented. Gulle v. Boggs, 174 So.2d 26 (Fla.1965); Eppler v. Tarmac America, Inc., 695 So.2d 775 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. granted, 705 So.2d 8 (Fla.1997) (Table, No. 91,066); Kao v. Lauredo, 617 So.2d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Pierce v. Progressive American Ins. Co., 582 So.2d 712 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 591 So.2d 183 (Fla.1991); Tozier v. Jarvis, 469 So.2d 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Baker v. Deeks, 176 So.2d 108 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 183 So.2d 213 (Fla.1965). Lynx, however, did not make this argument below; it only objected to the instruction because the bus driver testified that Lynx did not advise the trial court that the giving of this instruction would be improper where the court had already determined that Atkinson was not entitled to a directed verdict. Tozier at 886 (). Hence, it failed to preserve the issue for consideration by this court. Jaffe v. Endure-A-Life Time Awning Sales, Inc., 98 So.2d 77 (Fla.1957)(question as to the proper law to be applied could not be considered for the first time on appeal); Clock v. Clock, 649 So.2d 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)(an appellate court will not consider any ground for objection not presented to the trial court; review is limited to the specific grounds raised below); Perez v. Winn-Dixie, 639 So.2d 109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)(as a general rule, the failure to object or argue a specific point before the lower tribunal will preclude appellate review of that particular point); W.R....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Aills v. Boemi
...852 (Fla.2003)). Appellate review is therefore limited to the specific grounds for objection raised at trial. Lynx Transp. v. Atkinson, 720 So.2d 600, 600-01 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Clock v. Clock, 649 So.2d 312, 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Wilson v. Health Trust, Inc., 640 So.2d 93, 94 (Fla. 4th ......
-
Goss v. Permenter
...to the aggravation instruction on that ground, and thus this issue is not preserved for appellate review. Lynx Transportation v. Atkinson, 720 So.2d 600 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). We also agree with appellees that their counsel sufficiently established a basis for the giving of this instruction. ......
-
A.L.H. v. State, Case No. 2D15-3404
...report said and whether A.L.H. studied it. We arebound by the record and arguments made in the trial court. See Lynx Transp. v. Atkinson, 720 So. 2d 600, 601 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Based on what is before us, we are compelled to affirm the rulings of the trial court. Affirmed.SLEET and BADALA......
-
A.L.H. v. State, 2D15–3404.
...report said and whether A.L.H. studied it. We are bound by the record and arguments made in the trial court. See Lynx Transp. v. Atkinson, 720 So.2d 600, 601 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Based on what is before us, we are compelled to affirm the rulings of the trial court.Affirmed.SLEET and BADALAM......