Gumper v. Bach

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gumper v. Bach

474 So. 2d 420, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2033

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 27, 1985

DocketNo. 84-2309

StatusPublished

This text of 474 So. 2d 420 (Gumper v. Bach) 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

Gumper v. Bach, 474 So. 2d 420, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2033 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

William Gumper appeals from a final judgment entered after the trial court denied his motion for a new trial on the grounds that the jury award was inadequate. The jury awarded appellant $2,150 in this dental malpractice action and found him to be 40% comparatively negligent. We affirm upon a holding that 1) the jury’s monetary award was reasonable in light of the evidence presented and appellant’s actual damages, and 2) the trial court did not err in instructing the jury on comparative negligence where the appellee raised it as an affirmative defense and the evidence showed that appellant delayed seeking treatment for five months after the root canal was performed. Cf. Cuozzo v. Ronan & Kunzl, Inc., 453 So.2d 902 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Borenstein v. Raskin, 401 So.2d 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

Affirmed.

HENDRY and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

William Gumper appeals from a final judgment entered after the trial court denied his motion for a new trial on the grounds that the jury award was inadequate. The jury awarded appellant $2,150 in this dental malpractice action and found him to be 40% comparatively negligent. We affirm upon a holding that 1) the jury’s monetary award was reasonable in light of the evidence presented and appellant’s actual damages, and 2) the trial court did not err in instructing the jury on comparative negligence where the appellee raised it as an affirmative defense and the evidence showed that appellant delayed seeking treatment for five months after the root canal was performed. Cf. Cuozzo v. Ronan & Kunzl, Inc., 453 So.2d 902 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Borenstein v. Raskin, 401 So.2d 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

Affirmed.

HENDRY and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

474 So. 2d 420, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2033, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gumper-v-bach-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack