Mitchell v. Burgess & Cook, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mitchell v. Burgess & Cook, Inc.

238 So. 2d 460, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 5991

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 20, 1970

DocketNo. M-16

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 238 So. 2d 460 (Mitchell v. Burgess & Cook, Inc.) 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

Mitchell v. Burgess & Cook, Inc., 238 So. 2d 460, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 5991 (Fla. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of an adverse final judgment rendered upon a jury verdict in favor of appellees. The cause of action sued upon is for the recovery of damages suffered by appellant as a result of appellees’ alleged negligent operation of a motor vehicle. The principal question preserved on appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment.

In our review of the issues presented for decision we have given due consideration to the applicable principle that a judgment of the trial court reaches the appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness. The record reveals that although the testimony is conflicting, there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the jury as reflected by its verdict and the conclusion reached by the trial court in denying appellant’s motion for a new trial. These findings and conclusions will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing that they are erroneous and unsupported by the record.¹

We have carefully considered appellant’s remaining points charging error by the trial court’s refusal to strike appellees’ defense of contributory negligence and to grant appellant’s requested jury instruction on the doctrine of last clear chance. We find these contentions to be without merit.²

The judgment appealed is accordingly affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K„ Acting C. J., WIGGINTON, J., and McLANE, RALPH M., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of an adverse final judgment rendered upon a jury verdict in favor of appellees. The cause of action sued upon is for the recovery of damages suffered by appellant as a result of appellees’ alleged negligent operation of a motor vehicle. The principal question preserved on appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment.

In our review of the issues presented for decision we have given due consideration to the applicable principle that a judgment of the trial court reaches the appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness. The record reveals that although the testimony is conflicting, there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the jury as reflected by its verdict and the conclusion reached by the trial court in denying appellant’s motion for a new trial. These findings and conclusions will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing that they are erroneous and unsupported by the record.¹

We have carefully considered appellant’s remaining points charging error by the trial court’s refusal to strike appellees’ defense of contributory negligence and to grant appellant’s requested jury instruction on the doctrine of last clear chance. We find these contentions to be without merit.²

The judgment appealed is accordingly affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K„ Acting C. J., WIGGINTON, J., and McLANE, RALPH M., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 So. 2d 460, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 5991, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-v-burgess-cook-inc-fladistctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack