Scrima v. Hutchins

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Scrima v. Hutchins

849 So. 2d 384, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 8777, 2003 WL 21348337

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 11, 2003·No. No. 4D02-3504·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and raises three issues. We find no error in the court’s instruction on res ipsa loquitur or the court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for directed verdict. We also find no error in the court’s refusal to set off the settlement between the plaintiff and another defendant, which occurred prior to trial. See D’Angelo v. Fitzmaurice, 832 So.2d 135 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (failure to place the co-defendant’s fault before the jury negates any entitlement to a set-off).

AFFIRMED.

STONE, STEVENSON and MAY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and raises three issues. We find no error in the court’s instruction on res ipsa loquitur or the court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for directed verdict. We also find no error in the court’s refusal to set off the settlement between the plaintiff and another defendant, which occurred prior to trial. See D’Angelo v. Fitzmaurice, 832 So.2d 135 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (failure to place the co-defendant’s fault before the jury negates any entitlement to a set-off).

AFFIRMED.

STONE, STEVENSON and MAY, JJ., concur.

Scrima v. Hutchins, 849 So. 2d 384, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 8777, 2003 WL 21348337 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

849 So. 2d 384 (Scrima v. Hutchins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related