Little River Bank and Trust Company v. Magoffin

100 So. 2d 626
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedFebruary 19, 1958
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 100 So. 2d 626 (Little River Bank and Trust Company v. Magoffin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Little River Bank and Trust Company v. Magoffin, 100 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 1958).

Opinion

100 So.2d 626 (1958)

LITTLE RIVER BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellant,
v.
Edward T. MAGOFFIN, a minor, by his mother and next friend, Annette G. Magoffin, and Annette G. Magoffin, individually, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Florida.

February 19, 1958.

*627 Wicker & Smith and Joe C. Brannen, Miami, for appellant.

Nichols, Gaither, Green, Frates & Beckham, Miami, for appellees.

ROBERTS, Justice.

This is an appeal by defendant from verdicts and judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered in the lower court in a negligence suit. At the trial, liability was admitted and the cause was submitted to the jury on the question of damages only under instructions not here complained of. Defendant's only contention on the appeal is that the verdicts were not supported by the evidence.

It has long been the settled rule in this jurisdiction that damages in a personal injury action are for the discretion of the jury. Unless "clearly arbitrary", Sproule v. Nelson, Fla. 1955, 81 So.2d 478, or "so excessive as to indicate that the jury was influenced by passion, prejudice, corruption, or other improper motive," Upton v. Hutchison, Fla. 1950, 46 So.2d 20, 21, or "so much greater than it should have been as to shock the judicial conscience," Bartholf v. Baker, Fla. 1954, 71 So.2d 480, 484, the amount awarded by the jury will not be disturbed on appeal. The burden is on the appellant to establish the fact that the verdict is wholly unsupported by the evidence or was the result of passion, prejudice or other improper motive. Bartholf v. Baker, supra.

The verdict awarding damages to plaintiffs finds support in the evidence, and the amount thereof is not so excessive as to shock the conscience of the court. Accordingly, the judgment appealed from should be and it is hereby

Affirmed.

TERRELL, C.J., and THOMAS, HOBSON and DREW, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Clay
586 So. 2d 394 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company v. McKelvey
270 So. 2d 705 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1972)
Tremblay v. Lippman
264 So. 2d 30 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1972)
Seaboard Coast Line Railroad v. McKelvey
259 So. 2d 777 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1972)
City of Hialeah v. Hutchins
215 So. 2d 496 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1968)
Atlas Properties, Inc. v. Didich
213 So. 2d 278 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1968)
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. Braz
182 So. 2d 491 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1966)
Sinclair Refining Co. v. Butler
172 So. 2d 499 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1965)
Tampa Transit Lines, Inc. v. Smith
155 So. 2d 557 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1963)
Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Stewart
140 So. 2d 880 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1962)
Schnedl v. Rich
137 So. 2d 1 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1962)
Aylesworth v. London
119 So. 2d 816 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1960)
Coast Cities Coaches v. Donat
106 So. 2d 593 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
100 So. 2d 626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/little-river-bank-and-trust-company-v-magoffin-fla-1958.