Swallows v. Allen

Miami-Dade County Circuit Court

Swallows v. Allen

2 Fla. Supp. 72

CourtCircuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida, Miami-Dade County

DecidedAugust 1, 1952

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Fla. Supp. 72 (Swallows v. Allen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida, Miami-Dade County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Swallows v. Allen, 2 Fla. Supp. 72 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

VINCENT C. GIBLIN, Circuit Judge.

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the cause remanded — but only for reassessment of the damages recoverable by the plaintiff-appellee.

The only damages recoverable by the plaintiff for the conversion by the defendant-appellant of the former’s vehicle in the circumstances disclosed by the evidence are, in my opinion, the reasonable market value of the converted vehicle and legal interest on such sum from the date of the conversion.

The trial judge instructed the jury that the plaintiff was entitled to damages “for the loss of the use of [the vehicle] and also for a reasonable rental of another trailer during the time that he was without the use of [the vehicle].” I think this instruction was erroneous.

Unfortunately it is impossible to determine what part of the total damages ($2,100) awarded by the jury was “for the loss of the use” of the plaintiff’s vehicle and “for a reasonable rental of another trailer during the time that he was without the use” of the vehicle. Consequently a reassessment of damages cannot be obviated.

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

VINCENT C. GIBLIN, Circuit Judge.

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the cause remanded — but only for reassessment of the damages recoverable by the plaintiff-appellee.

The only damages recoverable by the plaintiff for the conversion by the defendant-appellant of the former’s vehicle in the circumstances disclosed by the evidence are, in my opinion, the reasonable market value of the converted vehicle and legal interest on such sum from the date of the conversion.

The trial judge instructed the jury that the plaintiff was entitled to damages “for the loss of the use of [the vehicle] and also for a reasonable rental of another trailer during the time that he was without the use of [the vehicle].” I think this instruction was erroneous.

Unfortunately it is impossible to determine what part of the total damages ($2,100) awarded by the jury was “for the loss of the use” of the plaintiff’s vehicle and “for a reasonable rental of another trailer during the time that he was without the use” of the vehicle. Consequently a reassessment of damages cannot be obviated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Fla. Supp. 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/swallows-v-allen-flacirct11mia-1952.