Luce v. Lee

84 So. 726, 79 Fla. 693
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedMay 3, 1920
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 84 So. 726 (Luce v. Lee) 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
Luce v. Lee, 84 So. 726, 79 Fla. 693 (Fla. 1920).

Opinion

Whitfield, J.

Lee recovered judgment for $1000.00 damages for personal injuries received while riding a bicycle because of a collision with an automobile driven by Luce. On writ of error Luce asserts errors in giving charges as well as in other matters of procedure. The charges relative to the elements of damage are more comprehensive than is warranted by the evidence and perhaps by the injuries alleged. Harmful error in such charges is shown by the damages awarded, which in view of all the evidence appear excessive. If the plaintiff enters a remittitur of $500.00, the judgment will stand affirmed for the remainder; otherwise, the judgment will stand reversed for a new trial. L. & N. Ry. Co. v. Frank, 76 Fla. 384; 76 Fla. 336; 77 Fla. 167.

It is so ordered.

Browne, C. J., and Taylor,, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.

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

Related

Miami Transit Co. v. Ross
143 So. 234 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1932)
Teller v. Richter
102 So. 250 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1924)
South Florida Farms Co. v. Stevenson
93 So. 247 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1922)
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Shouse
91 So. 90 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1922)
Tampa Electric Co. v. Gaffga
87 So. 922 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
84 So. 726, 79 Fla. 693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/luce-v-lee-fla-1920.