Zutell v. Sunrise Oldsmobile, Inc., O--120
| Decision Date | 30 September 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. O--120,O--120 |
| Parties | Marianne D. ZUTELL and Charles T. Zutell, Sr., Appellants, v. SUNRISE OLDSMOBILE, INC., a Florida corporation, and Catherine Canova, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Blalock, Holbrook, Lewis, Paul & Bennett, P.A., Jacksonville, for appellants.
J. Richard Moore, of Mathews, Osborne & Ehrlich, and Howell, Kirby, Montgomery, D'Aiuto, Dean & Hallowes, Jacksonville, for appellees.
Appellants seek review of an adverse final judgment based upon a jury verdict rendered in favor of appellees. The questions on appeal concern the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict; the court's instruction to the jury on the defense of contributory negligence interposed by appellees; and refusal of the court to instruct the jury on the doctrine of last clear chance as requested by appellants.
In our review of the issues presented for decision, we have given due consideration to the applicable principle that a judgment of the trial court reaches the appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness. The record reveals that, although the evidence is conflicting and subject to different reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom, there is substantial evidence to support the findings made by the jury and the conclusions reached by the trial court. It is not province of this court to substitute its judgment for that of the triers of the facts. These findings will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing that the trial court committed prejudicial error or that the evidence demonstrates that the conclusions reached are erroneous. 1 For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the trial court did not err in denying appellants' motion for a directed verdict on the issue of liability as to appellee Sunrise Oldsmobile, Inc., nor did it abuse its discretion in denying appellants' motion for a new trial grounded upon the premise that the verdict is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.
At no time during the conference on instructions to the jury, nor at any time thereafter, did appellants object to the court's instruction on the issue of contributory negligence raised by the defenses interposed by each appellee. Such objection may not be raised for the first time on appeal as has been attempted herein by appellants. 2 Even had objection been timely made, we find in the record sufficient evidence to carry this issue to the jury and the court's instruction thereon was therefore proper and necessary.
We cannot agree with appellants'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baker v. Baker
...that there was no competent evidence to sustain them. Kirk v. Edinger, 380 So.2d 1336 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Zutell v. Sunrise Oldsmobile, Inc., 252 So.2d 822 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). To modify or set aside a property settlement agreement, it is incumbent upon the party seeking to abrogate the ag......
-
Lollie v. General Motors Corp.
...to the court's instruction, an objection to the instruction may not be raised for the first time on appeal. Zutell v. Sunrise Oldsmobile, Inc., 252 So.2d 822 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971); see also Rule 1.470(b), Fla.R.Civ.P. We decline, therefore, to rule on plaintiffs' challenge to the jury instruc......
-
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. McAfoos, 73--1460
...at the trial, they now are precluded from raising the same as error for the first time on appeal. See e.g. Zutell v. Sunrise Oldsmobile, Inc., Fla.App.1971, 252 So.2d 822. Further, the error on the part of plaintiff's expert was caused in part by the negligence of the defendants in supplyin......
-
Bader Bros. Transfer & Storage, Inc. v. Campbell, 73--1466
...to the jury and, therefore, he now is precluded from raising the issue for the first time on appeal. See, e.g., Zutell v. Sunrise Oldsmobile, Inc., Fla.App.1971, 252 So.2d 822. Thus, this argument of appellant must We also have considered appellant's remaining points on appeal and find them......