Purvis v. Inter-County Tel. & Tel. Co.
Decision Date | 24 March 1965 |
Docket Number | No. 33549,INTER-COUNTY,33549 |
Parties | Connie W. PURVIS, Petitioner, v.TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, a corporation, Respondent. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Miller, Cone, Owen, Wagner & Nugent, West Palm Beach, and Lefferts L. Mabie, Jr., Wauchula, for petitioner.
Woolfolk, Myers., Curtis & Newman, Lake Wales, and Howell & Houser, Jacksonville, for respondent.
The petitioner seeks writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal, Second District, to review its decision in Inter-County Telephone & Telegraph Company v. Connie W. Purvis, 163 So.2d 38.
The facts of this case need not be summarized herein except so much of the opinion below as appears in the next paragraph, since they are detailed in the opinion of the District Court of Appeal sufficient to fully inform concerning the nature of the case below.
* * *
* * *
'The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial upon the issues of liability and damages.' (Emphasis supplied.)
Petitioner contends that where reversible error is found which affects only the issue of liability in the trial court, but does not touch upon the issue of damages, the decision below in this regard conflicts with the case of Larrabee v. Capeletti Bros., Inc. (Fla.App.3rd, 1963), 158 So.2d 540, since the District Court of Appeal remanded this case for a new trial not only upon the issue of liability of the defendant-respondent, but also on the issue of damages.
Petitioner also contends there is conflict between the decision below and Vasquez v. Stark (Fla.App.3rd, 1963), 155 So.2d 905. Inasmuch as this Court quashed the decision in Vasquez v. Stark, supra, and directed that the issue of liability therein be determined by a jury (see Stark v. Vasquez, Fla., 168 So.2d 140), this contention concerning conflict need not be considered.
We agree with petitioner that the decision sought to be reviewed conflicts in principle with Larrabee v. Capeletti, supra. In the latter case a new trial was granted only on the issue of liability in a personal injury action. The plaintiff there had received a jury verdict of $10,000.00. In that case the court held the issue of liability to be distinct and separable from the issue of damages. In support of this holding the court said:
' * * *' ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Delva v. Value Rent-A-Car
...influenced by its decisions on damages. Hence, that portion of the order under review cannot be sustained. See Purvis v. Inter-County Tel. & Tel. Co., 173 So.2d 679 (Fla.1965); Griefer v. DiPietro, 625 So.2d 1226 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), and cases cited; Royal Indemnity Co. v. Muscato, 305 So.2......
-
American Aerial Lift, Inc. v. Perez
...defendant and of the other entities allegedly responsible for the condition of the defective equipment. See Purvis v. Inter-County Telephone & Telegraph Co., 173 So.2d 679 (Fla.1965); Griefer v. DiPietro, 625 So.2d 1226 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), and cases cited; Royal Indemnity Co. v. Muscato, 3......
-
Schindler Corp. v. Ross
...negligence and the apportionment of fault, if any, as to the plaintiffs, the defendant, and Dade County. See Purvis v. Inter-County Tel. & Tel. Co., 173 So.2d 679 (Fla.1965); Griefer v. DiPietro, 625 So.2d 1226 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), and cases cited; Royal Indem. Co. v. Muscato, 305 So.2d 228......
-
Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Cohen
...to the issue of Robin's entitlement to the punitive damage awards will not be confusing or prejudicial. See Purvis v. Inter–County Tel. & Tel. Co., 173 So.2d 679, 681 (Fla.1965) (“The trial court can by proper instructions to the jury and supervision of the trial process avoid any inference......