Billman v. National Merchandise Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Billman v. National Merchandise Co.

311 So. 2d 403, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 13929

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 21, 1975

DocketNo. W-252

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 311 So. 2d 403 (Billman v. National Merchandise Co.) 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

Billman v. National Merchandise Co., 311 So. 2d 403, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 13929 (Fla. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

JOHNSON, Judge.

The appeal in this case contends that the trial court was in error in charging the jury on contributory negligence and comparative negligence resulting in the reduction of the jury verdict for damages.

Appellant contends that there were no facts from which the trial court could have found contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff-appellant, and therefore it was error to even charge on the question.

We find from the record, however, that there were some discrepancies in the testimonies of the parties as to whether the boat in question slipped, or at least did not exactly smoothly slide, into the water. There was enough question of fact to constitute a jury question. We think the trial court gave the correct instruction in keeping with the facts. We shall not substitute our judgment for that of the jury when it is clear that there is sufficient, competent evidence to support the jury verdict.

Affirmed.

RAWLS, C. J., and McCORD, J., concur.

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

JOHNSON, Judge.

The appeal in this case contends that the trial court was in error in charging the jury on contributory negligence and comparative negligence resulting in the reduction of the jury verdict for damages.

Appellant contends that there were no facts from which the trial court could have found contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff-appellant, and therefore it was error to even charge on the question.

We find from the record, however, that there were some discrepancies in the testimonies of the parties as to whether the boat in question slipped, or at least did not exactly smoothly slide, into the water. There was enough question of fact to constitute a jury question. We think the trial court gave the correct instruction in keeping with the facts. We shall not substitute our judgment for that of the jury when it is clear that there is sufficient, competent evidence to support the jury verdict.

Affirmed.

RAWLS, C. J., and McCORD, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

311 So. 2d 403, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 13929, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/billman-v-national-merchandise-co-fladistctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack