Safelite Glass Corp. v. Samuel
736 So. 2d 1283, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 10087, 1999 WL 543238
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Safelite Glass Corp. v. Samuel. Read the opinion of the Court — 771 So. 2d 44 →
Opinion
We affirm the final judgment. Appellants seek a new trial on the ground that the trial court erred in giving a jury instruction based on Via v. Tillinghast, 153 So.2d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). We conclude that the issue has not been preserved for review because the argument asserted here was not presented to the trial court. We further note, in any event, that the instruction based on Via should not have been given for the reasons articulated in Gordon’s Tractor Service, Inc. v. Bilello, 336 So.2d 1208 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Safelite Glass Corp. v. Samuel, 736 So. 2d 1283, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 10087, 1999 WL 543238 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).
736 So. 2d 1283 (Safelite Glass Corp. v. Samuel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Via v. Tillinghast
153 So. 2d 59 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1963)
Gordon's Tractor Service, Inc. v. Bilello
336 So. 2d 1208 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1976)