Raffel v. Magarian, 63-620
| Decision Date | 16 June 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 63-620,63-620 |
| Citation | 165 So.2d 249 |
| Parties | Emil J. RAFFEL, Appellant, v. Charles G. MAGARIAN, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Daniel G. Satin, Miami, for appellant.
Blackwell, Walker & Gray, and James E. Tribble, Miami, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, C. J., and HORTON and TILLMAN PEARSON, JJ.
The appellant was the plaintiff below and appeals an adverse final judgment. The appellant was involved in a rear end automobile collision. After the issues were made by the pleadings, the liability of the appellee was established by the entry of a summary judgment in favor of the appellant. The cause went to trial before a jury on the issue of damages alone. At the conclusion of the trial, the court instructed the jury and furnished them with one verdict in which he directed that they should find for the appellant, and assess his damages for 'none' dollars or such figure as they would deem appropriate. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the appellant but assessed his damgaes at 'none' dollars. Upon this verdict the court entered the judgment appealed and later entered a cost judgment in favor of the appellee.
On appeal, the appellant's main contention is that the court erred in failing to grant him a new trial on the question of damages. Coupled with this contention is the argument that the court should not have instructed the jury to enter the figure 'none' or such figure they deemed appropriate in the verdict tendered to them at the conclusion of the trial.
On appellant's main contention we conclude that this case is controlled by the principles announced in White v. Acher, Fla.App.1963, 155 So.2d 176, and Shaw v. Puleo, Fla.1964, 159 So.2d 641. Further elaboration here is unnecessary.
We have read the instructions of the court to the jury and fail to find wherein the court's remarks concerning the verdict were such as to mislead the jury or influence them in returning the verdict they did. The judgment, however, must be reversed for other reasons.
The appellant was awarded a summary judgment as to liability against the appellee and the jury returned a verdict in his favor although it failed to award any sum as damages. The only judgment which the court could validly render on the verdict returned by the jury was one in favor of the appellant. See Carroll v. Hertz Corporation, Fla.App.1961, 132 So.2d 624, and Jordan v. Reynolds, Fla.App.1963, 154 So.2d 200.
Inasmuch as a judgment in favor of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sunshine Bottling Co. v. Tropicana Products, Inc.
...DCA 1995); Upson v. Hazelrig, 444 So.2d 1127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Blue v. Williams, 200 So.2d 626 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967); Raffel v. Magarian, 165 So.2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). However, we find Sunshine is not entitled to attorneys' fees because nothing in the parties' agreement provides for prev......
-
Parker v. Wideman
...of Florida law, and will dispose of this case pursuant to the law of Florida. 3 The appellee also refers us to Raffel v. Magarian, 165 So.2d 249 (Fla.App.3d 1964) in support of its position. In that case a summary judgment had been awarded to the plaintiff as to liability, and a trial as to......
-
England v. Kilman
...v. Ward, Fla.1958, 103 So.2d 635; White v. Acker, Fla.App.1963, 155 So.2d 176; Shaw v. Puleo, Fla.1964, 159 So.2d 641; Raffel v. Magarian, Fla.App.1964, 165 So.2d 249; Cohen v. Springer Motor Co., Inc., Fla.App.1966, 185 So.2d 748; Clark v. Yellow Cab Company of Miami, Fla.App.1967, 195 So.2d ...
-
Tacher v. Mathews, 3D01-3369.
...between Upson v. Hazelrig, 444 So.2d 1127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), Blue v. Williams, 200 So.2d 626 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967), and Raffel v. Magarian, 165 So.2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964), all of which concluded that costs should go to the plaintiff under similar situations; and Militana v. Ladd, 605 So.2d ......