Welles v. Bryant

• Decision Date: 29 October 1914
• Parties: WELLES et al. v. BRYANT.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

66 So. 562

68 Fla. 113

WELLES et al. v. BRYANT.

Florida Supreme Court

October 29, 1914

Error to Circuit Court, De Soto County; M. F. Horne, Judge.

Action by George E. Bryant against W. G. Welles and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

It is harmless error to strike a special plea, when the evidence in support of the special plea is admitted under the general issue.

The judgment should not be reversed or a new trial granted in any case, civil or criminal, for errors in rulings upon the admission or rejection of evidence, or for errors in giving or refusing charges, or for errors in any other matter of procedure or practice, unless it shall appear to the court from a consideration of the entire cause that such errors injuriously affect the substantial rights of the complaining party. Nor should a judgment be reversed or a new trial granted on the ground that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence, unless it appears that there was no substantial evidence to support the finding, or that upon the whole evidence the verdict is clearly wrong, or that the jury were not governed by the evidence in making their finding.

COUNSEL Treadwell & Treadwell, of Arcadia, for plaintiffs in error.

Macfarlane & Chancey, of Tampa, for defendant in error.

OPINION

WHITFIELD J.

George E. Bryant brought an action under section 3147, General Statutes of 1906, against W. G. Welles and J. J. Heard to recover damages for mental pain and suffering and loss of services resulting from the death of the plaintiff's four year old minor child, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendants as tenants in common of the property the dangerous condition of which caused the death. The validity of the statute as applicable to the case was sustained on a former writ of error in Bryant v. Welles, 65 Fla. 355, 61 So. 748. At the trial the plaintiff recovered a judgment for $7,500 damages and the defendants took writ of error.

The errors asserted here relate chiefly to the striking of a special plea as being covered by the general issue, to the admission of testimony as to the physical conditions where the fatal injury occurred, to the testimony as to the present earnings of other minors much older than the four year old child who was killed, and to the amount of the damages allowed. As the testimony upon which the special plea was presented was...