Kaufman v. Rubin

183 So. 2d 284, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5533
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 22, 1966·No. No. 65-514·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, who was the plaintiff in the trial court and suffered an adverse jury verdict in an action for a fall in ap-pellee’s hotel, presents two points. Each point alleges a procedural error.

We do not determine whether the points present error because it is conclusively apparent from the record that no prejudicial error has been shown. The cause was fully tried, and the appellant was able to present to the jury each contention that she puts forward in the case. Therefore, this judgment is affirmed pursuant to the rule that an appellate court will not reverse a judgment based on substantial evi[285] dence where the record does not reveal that the errors resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Symmes v. Prairie Pebble Phosphate Co., 69 Fla. 4, 67 So. 228 (1915); Victor Hotel Owners v. Sperling, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 120.

Affirmed.

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

Kaufman v. Rubin, 183 So. 2d 284, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5533 (Fla. Ct. App. 1966).

183 So. 2d 284 (Kaufman v. Rubin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Presley v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance Co.
453 So. 2d 481 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
Jalayer v. Perlman
442 So. 2d 261 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
In Re Siddons
297 So. 2d 54 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1974)