Consolidated Air Charter Exchange, Inc. v. Holly-Cotton Aviation Services, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Consolidated Air Charter Exchange, Inc. v. Holly-Cotton Aviation Services, Inc.

219 So. 2d 471, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 6186

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 18, 1969

DocketNo. 68-566

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 219 So. 2d 471 (Consolidated Air Charter Exchange, Inc. v. Holly-Cotton Aviation Services, Inc.) 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

Consolidated Air Charter Exchange, Inc. v. Holly-Cotton Aviation Services, Inc., 219 So. 2d 471, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 6186 (Fla. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff-appellant received a jury verdict of $3500. Final judgment was entered thereon. The appellant’s motion for a new trial was based primarily on the ground that the verdict was inadequate. The appellant urges that the trial court erred in denying its motion for a new trial.

The appellant sought damages equivalent to the difference in the value of an airplane before and after a wreck caused by the appellee’s negligent repair of the airplane. The appellant points out that there is no way for the jury to have reached the exact amount of the verdict by using any combination of the amounts of the estimates of value of the airplane submitted by the expert witnesses at the trial. We find from our examination of the record that this is true. Nevertheless, we feel that the judgment must be affirmed upon the principle that an appellate court will not reverse an order denying a new trial upon inadequacy of the verdict where reasonable men could have found the verdict that they did find. City of Miami v. Smith, Fla. 1964, 165 So.2d 748; Hayes v. Hatched, Fla. 1964, 166 So.2d 146; White v. Bacon, Fla.App, 1964, 166 So.2d 678.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff-appellant received a jury verdict of $3500. Final judgment was entered thereon. The appellant’s motion for a new trial was based primarily on the ground that the verdict was inadequate. The appellant urges that the trial court erred in denying its motion for a new trial.

The appellant sought damages equivalent to the difference in the value of an airplane before and after a wreck caused by the appellee’s negligent repair of the airplane. The appellant points out that there is no way for the jury to have reached the exact amount of the verdict by using any combination of the amounts of the estimates of value of the airplane submitted by the expert witnesses at the trial. We find from our examination of the record that this is true. Nevertheless, we feel that the judgment must be affirmed upon the principle that an appellate court will not reverse an order denying a new trial upon inadequacy of the verdict where reasonable men could have found the verdict that they did find. City of Miami v. Smith, Fla. 1964, 165 So.2d 748; Hayes v. Hatched, Fla. 1964, 166 So.2d 146; White v. Bacon, Fla.App, 1964, 166 So.2d 678.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 So. 2d 471, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 6186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/consolidated-air-charter-exchange-inc-v-holly-cotton-aviation-services-fladistctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack