Sorg v. Royal

Supreme Court of Florida

Sorg v. Royal

41 So. 2d 317, 1949 Fla. LEXIS 746

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJune 21, 1949

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 41 So. 2d 317 (Sorg v. Royal) 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

Sorg v. Royal, 41 So. 2d 317, 1949 Fla. LEXIS 746 (Fla. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Action by Michael M. Sorg against D.E. Royal for injuries sustained as a result of defendant's negligence. From a judgment entered on allegedly inadequate verdict in his favor, plaintiff appeals.

Judgment reversed for new trial upon question of damages. On this appeal the contention is made that the jury's verdict for the plaintiff-appellant in the sum of $1,500.00 is inadequate to compensate him for permanent injuries, expenses, loss of earnings and bodily pain and suffering. The plaintiff-appellant is shown to have been a police officer when injured, earning $195.00 per month, had good health and had served as a police officer for ten years and was 70 years of age. As a result of defendant-appellant's negligence, admitted on the record, the appellant was permanently injured and lost thirteen months' time as a police officer, totalling $2,535.00. Costs of hospitalization and physician's treatment amounted to $986.17, thus the actual losses sustained as a result of the injury amounted to $3,441.17. The jury, for reasons not reflected by the record, by its verdict fixed the losses in the sum of $1,500.00. The law will not permit the whims and caprice of a jury, when considering factual questions, to prevail over a preponderance of the evidence as shown by the record. See Allen v. Powell,152 Fla. 443, 12 So.2d 378.

Reversed for a new trial upon the sole question of the amount of damages. *Page 318

TERRELL, THOMAS, BARNS and HOBSON, JJ., concur.

ADAMS, C.J., and SEBRING, J., dissent.

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

Action by Michael M. Sorg against D.E. Royal for injuries sustained as a result of defendant's negligence. From a judgment entered on allegedly inadequate verdict in his favor, plaintiff appeals.

Judgment reversed for new trial upon question of damages. On this appeal the contention is made that the jury's verdict for the plaintiff-appellant in the sum of $1,500.00 is inadequate to compensate him for permanent injuries, expenses, loss of earnings and bodily pain and suffering. The plaintiff-appellant is shown to have been a police officer when injured, earning $195.00 per month, had good health and had served as a police officer for ten years and was 70 years of age. As a result of defendant-appellant's negligence, admitted on the record, the appellant was permanently injured and lost thirteen months' time as a police officer, totalling $2,535.00. Costs of hospitalization and physician's treatment amounted to $986.17, thus the actual losses sustained as a result of the injury amounted to $3,441.17. The jury, for reasons not reflected by the record, by its verdict fixed the losses in the sum of $1,500.00. The law will not permit the whims and caprice of a jury, when considering factual questions, to prevail over a preponderance of the evidence as shown by the record. See Allen v. Powell,152 Fla. 443, 12 So.2d 378.

Reversed for a new trial upon the sole question of the amount of damages. *Page 318

TERRELL, THOMAS, BARNS and HOBSON, JJ., concur.

ADAMS, C.J., and SEBRING, J., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 So. 2d 317, 1949 Fla. LEXIS 746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sorg-v-royal-fla-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack