Speight v. Dulimba

208 So. 2d 833, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5824
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 16, 1968·No. No. 67-614·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants appeal from a judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict in favor of Queenie Flowers Speight and Alvin Speight, her husband, wherein a jury, in a personal injury case, assessed the wife’s damages in the sum of Two Thousand ($2,000.00) Dollars and her husband’s damages at zero dollars.

Appellants contend that verdict of zero dollars to the husband wps contrary to the instructions of the trial judge as the facts supported a jury verdict for the hus[834] band as well as for the wife. The record on appeal submitted to this court by appellants does not contain the testimony presented to the jury. Generally, all instructions given by the trial judge should be considered in the light of all the testimony before reversible error can be ascertained. Crosby v. Stubblebine, Fla.App.1962, 142 So.2d 358.

As the record on appeal is deficient, this court cannot consider and resolve the assigned error. See Stuco Corp. v. Gates, Fla.App.1962, 145 So.2d 527 and Phillips v. Blum, Fla.App.1962, 139 So.2d 459.

Affirmed.

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

Speight v. Dulimba, 208 So. 2d 833, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5824 (Fla. Ct. App. 1968).

208 So. 2d 833 (Speight v. Dulimba) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Tomlinson v. Register
553 So. 2d 766 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Reeber
426 So. 2d 582 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
Brant v. Brooks
264 So. 2d 76 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1972)
Castaldo v. Singapore, J. F. Inc.
258 So. 2d 499 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1972)