Belcher v. James

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Belcher v. James

535 So. 2d 299, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2444, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4802, 1988 WL 115230

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 3, 1988

DocketNo. 87-1918

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 535 So. 2d 299 (Belcher v. James) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Belcher v. James, 535 So. 2d 299, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2444, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4802, 1988 WL 115230 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The jury awarded the plaintiff, passenger/owner, $75,000 for his injuries, but found him to be forty-five percent comparatively negligent. We agree that the trial court did not err in denying plaintiffs motion for a directed verdict. Our review of the record supports the trial court’s decision that the questions of whether (1) the driver was intoxicated; (2) the driver’s intoxication caused the accident; and (3) the plaintiff knew or should have known the driver was unfit to drive; were properly submitted to the jury. See Welch v. Moothart, 89 So.2d 485 (Fla.1956).

We also conclude the trial court did not err in denying the plaintiff’s motion for additur or new trial because of the inadequacy of his damages. See Keith v. Russell I Bundy & Associates, Inc., 495 So.2d 1223 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Accordingly, we AFFIRM.

COBB and COWART, JJ., and GLICKSTEIN, H.S., Associate Judge, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The jury awarded the plaintiff, passenger/owner, $75,000 for his injuries, but found him to be forty-five percent comparatively negligent. We agree that the trial court did not err in denying plaintiffs motion for a directed verdict. Our review of the record supports the trial court’s decision that the questions of whether (1) the driver was intoxicated; (2) the driver’s intoxication caused the accident; and (3) the plaintiff knew or should have known the driver was unfit to drive; were properly submitted to the jury. See Welch v. Moothart, 89 So.2d 485 (Fla.1956).

We also conclude the trial court did not err in denying the plaintiff’s motion for additur or new trial because of the inadequacy of his damages. See Keith v. Russell I Bundy & Associates, Inc., 495 So.2d 1223 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Accordingly, we AFFIRM.

COBB and COWART, JJ., and GLICKSTEIN, H.S., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

535 So. 2d 299, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2444, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4802, 1988 WL 115230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/belcher-v-james-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack