Guthrie v. Solms

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Guthrie v. Solms

150 So. 2d 250

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 26, 1963

DocketNo. 62-407

StatusPublished

This text of 150 So. 2d 250 (Guthrie v. Solms) 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

Guthrie v. Solms, 150 So. 2d 250 (Fla. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was the plaintiff in an action for damages for injury to her person and property resulting from an automobile accident. A jury trial resulted in a verdict in her favor for $1,064 which was about $100 more than her out-of-pocket expenses. Her motion for new trial was denied, judgment was entered, and she has appealed.

The appellant presents four points, the first of which is a contention that the trial court erred in denying her motion for new trial on the ground of inadequacy of the verdict. The evidence relating to the severity of the collision and the resultant injuries was not without conflict. We uphold the trial judge’s ruling on the authority of Glasser v. Leary, Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 683. There was evidence of earlier injury. Compare Scott v. Andrews, Fla.App.1962, 140 So.2d 128.

The other contentions, relating to rulings on evidence and claimed improper argument, we find to be without merit.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was the plaintiff in an action for damages for injury to her person and property resulting from an automobile accident. A jury trial resulted in a verdict in her favor for $1,064 which was about $100 more than her out-of-pocket expenses. Her motion for new trial was denied, judgment was entered, and she has appealed.

The appellant presents four points, the first of which is a contention that the trial court erred in denying her motion for new trial on the ground of inadequacy of the verdict. The evidence relating to the severity of the collision and the resultant injuries was not without conflict. We uphold the trial judge’s ruling on the authority of Glasser v. Leary, Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 683. There was evidence of earlier injury. Compare Scott v. Andrews, Fla.App.1962, 140 So.2d 128.

The other contentions, relating to rulings on evidence and claimed improper argument, we find to be without merit.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 So. 2d 250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guthrie-v-solms-fladistctapp-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack