Harper ex rel. Hyzer v. Adams

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Harper ex rel. Hyzer v. Adams

166 So. 2d 824, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4065

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 30, 1964

DocketNo. 63-630

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 166 So. 2d 824 (Harper ex rel. Hyzer v. Adams) 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

Harper ex rel. Hyzer v. Adams, 166 So. 2d 824, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4065 (Fla. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, plaintiffs in the trial court,, appeal in adverse final judgment rendered upon a jury verdict in a personal injury action. They urge error on the part of the trial judge in giving a charge to the-jury on a Metropolitan Ordinance¹ relative to pedestrian traffic alongside a street where no sidewalk was provided, and im refusing a challenge to a juror for alleged' cause.

We have examined the record and' find no error in the trial judge’s giving of the requested instruction in light of the evidence before him. It appears that possibly he should have given a charge as to whether or not the area wherein the injured party was walking was intended to be, in fact,, a sidewalk. However, our review in this-matter is precluded by the failure of counsel for the appellants to properly bring-before this court the requested charges-which were tendered to the trial judge. Therefore, in accordance with the following authorities, we are unable to consider this point. See: Thomas v. State ex rel. Roberts, 37 Fla. 378, 20 So. 529; Younglove v. Knox, 44 Fla. 743, 33 So. 427; 2 Fla. Jur., Appeals, § 318. Also see: Staicer v. Hall, Fla.App.1961, 130 So.2d 113; Crosby v. Stubblebine, Fla.App.1962, 142 So.2d 358; Busser v. Sabatasso, Fla.App.1962, 143 So.[825]*8252d 533. As to the question of the trial judge’s failure in refusing a challenge to ■a juror for alleged cause, it would appear that the point is not well-taken under the following authorities: Green v. State, 40 Fla. 191, 23 So. 851; Hicks v. State, Fla.App.1962, 138 So.2d 101; 20 Fla.Jur., Juries, § 98.

Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the judgment under review is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, plaintiffs in the trial court,, appeal in adverse final judgment rendered upon a jury verdict in a personal injury action. They urge error on the part of the trial judge in giving a charge to the-jury on a Metropolitan Ordinance¹ relative to pedestrian traffic alongside a street where no sidewalk was provided, and im refusing a challenge to a juror for alleged' cause.

We have examined the record and' find no error in the trial judge’s giving of the requested instruction in light of the evidence before him. It appears that possibly he should have given a charge as to whether or not the area wherein the injured party was walking was intended to be, in fact,, a sidewalk. However, our review in this-matter is precluded by the failure of counsel for the appellants to properly bring-before this court the requested charges-which were tendered to the trial judge. Therefore, in accordance with the following authorities, we are unable to consider this point. See: Thomas v. State ex rel. Roberts, 37 Fla. 378, 20 So. 529; Younglove v. Knox, 44 Fla. 743, 33 So. 427; 2 Fla. Jur., Appeals, § 318. Also see: Staicer v. Hall, Fla.App.1961, 130 So.2d 113; Crosby v. Stubblebine, Fla.App.1962, 142 So.2d 358; Busser v. Sabatasso, Fla.App.1962, 143 So.[825]*8252d 533. As to the question of the trial judge’s failure in refusing a challenge to ■a juror for alleged cause, it would appear that the point is not well-taken under the following authorities: Green v. State, 40 Fla. 191, 23 So. 851; Hicks v. State, Fla.App.1962, 138 So.2d 101; 20 Fla.Jur., Juries, § 98.

Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the judgment under review is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 So. 2d 824, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4065, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harper-ex-rel-hyzer-v-adams-fladistctapp-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack