Martinique Hotel, Inc. v. Taylor

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Martinique Hotel, Inc. v. Taylor

139 So. 2d 916, 1962 Fla. App. LEXIS 3537

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 17, 1962

DocketNo. 61-466

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 139 So. 2d 916 (Martinique Hotel, Inc. v. Taylor) 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

Martinique Hotel, Inc. v. Taylor, 139 So. 2d 916, 1962 Fla. App. LEXIS 3537 (Fla. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals an order granting plaintiff’s motion for new trial. The trial judge set forth the ground:

“The Court is concerned with certain of the jury instructions in this cause which, in my opinion, misled the jury in their deliberations. There were two issues in this cause, negligence and/or nuisance.

“In reviewing the jury charges, the Court is now of the belief that the jury was misled on the applicable law. The Court’s proximate cause instructions on the negligence issue restricted recovery for the plaintiff to a finding by the jury that the negligence of the defendant was the sole proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, notwithstanding the fact that the jury might have found the public nuisance created by the defendant to be a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. These instructions regarding negligence restricted the plaintiff’s recovery, if any, to the negligence issue.”

A review of the record in the light of the contentions contained in appellant’s brief reveals that the trial judge acted within the wide discretion granted to a trial judge upon motion for new trial. We therefore affirm upon authority of Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 669.

Affirmed.

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