Guthrie v. Solms

150 So. 2d 250
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 26, 1963·No. No. 62-407·Published

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

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

150 So. 2d 250 (Guthrie v. Solms) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Scott v. Andrews
140 So. 2d 128 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1962)
Glasser v. Leary
67 So. 2d 683 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1953)