Knabb v. Tompkins

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Knabb v. Tompkins

254 So. 2d 858, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 5821

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 30, 1971

DocketNo. N-522

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 254 So. 2d 858 (Knabb v. Tompkins) 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

Knabb v. Tompkins, 254 So. 2d 858, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 5821 (Fla. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this case, the trial court directed a verdict on liability against the defendant. This was assigned as error, but we hold that the trial court was not in error in this inasmuch as the driver for appellant admitted in his testimony that he was changing lanes and saw a car coming, and he “pulled back in and my right fender hit his left on the back.” This was sufficient evidence, from which the trial court could determine a violation of the Florida Statutes by the driver of defendant’s truck, without explanation, upon which the order directing the verdict as to liability against the defendant was based.

Appellant next raises the issue of the excessiveness of the verdict. The amount of damages to be awarded was properly a jury question and there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict.

The next question raised by the appellant, the jury instructions on future damages, causes us to take a closer look at the charges to the jury. While the defendant’s counsel had requested the Florida Standard Jury Instruction, we do not find an objection at the close of the charges; but, we do hold the instructions to the jury were comprehensive enough to cover the Standard Jury Instruction so that there was no error, irrespective of whether the objection was given or not.

We are cognizant of the holding of our sister court in Lawn v. Wasserman, 248 [859]*859So.2d 548 (Fla.App. 3rd, 1971), but we do not think the facts of this case fall within the rule of the Lawn case.

For these reasons, the judgment herein appealed is

Affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K, Acting C. J., and JOHNSON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this case, the trial court directed a verdict on liability against the defendant. This was assigned as error, but we hold that the trial court was not in error in this inasmuch as the driver for appellant admitted in his testimony that he was changing lanes and saw a car coming, and he “pulled back in and my right fender hit his left on the back.” This was sufficient evidence, from which the trial court could determine a violation of the Florida Statutes by the driver of defendant’s truck, without explanation, upon which the order directing the verdict as to liability against the defendant was based.

Appellant next raises the issue of the excessiveness of the verdict. The amount of damages to be awarded was properly a jury question and there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict.

The next question raised by the appellant, the jury instructions on future damages, causes us to take a closer look at the charges to the jury. While the defendant’s counsel had requested the Florida Standard Jury Instruction, we do not find an objection at the close of the charges; but, we do hold the instructions to the jury were comprehensive enough to cover the Standard Jury Instruction so that there was no error, irrespective of whether the objection was given or not.

We are cognizant of the holding of our sister court in Lawn v. Wasserman, 248 [859]*859So.2d 548 (Fla.App. 3rd, 1971), but we do not think the facts of this case fall within the rule of the Lawn case.

For these reasons, the judgment herein appealed is

Affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K, Acting C. J., and JOHNSON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 So. 2d 858, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 5821, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knabb-v-tompkins-fladistctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack