Taylor v. Craig

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Taylor v. Craig

354 So. 2d 105, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15064

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 10, 1978

DocketNo. 76-2294

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 354 So. 2d 105 (Taylor v. Craig) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Taylor v. Craig, 354 So. 2d 105, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15064 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendants challenge the amount of damages awarded in a personal injury case. The trial court denied a motion for a new trial or a remittitur, which decision indicates that the trial court did not feel that the verdict was excessive or such as to shock the judicial conscience.

We have examined the record and the evidence and considered the arguments and case law urged. It is our view that the damages awarded were within reasonable limits and amply justified by the evidence at trial. We are unable to determine any legal basis whereby this court would be entitled to disturb the jury’s decision to the amount of damages. The defendants, having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the verdict and judgment based thereon are affirmed. See Cleere v. Humphreys, 280 [106]*106So.2d 23 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); St. Vincent’s Hospital, Incorporated v. Crouch, 292 So.2d 405 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Popham v. Baker, 309 So.2d 222 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendants challenge the amount of damages awarded in a personal injury case. The trial court denied a motion for a new trial or a remittitur, which decision indicates that the trial court did not feel that the verdict was excessive or such as to shock the judicial conscience.

We have examined the record and the evidence and considered the arguments and case law urged. It is our view that the damages awarded were within reasonable limits and amply justified by the evidence at trial. We are unable to determine any legal basis whereby this court would be entitled to disturb the jury’s decision to the amount of damages. The defendants, having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the verdict and judgment based thereon are affirmed. See Cleere v. Humphreys, 280 [106]*106So.2d 23 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); St. Vincent’s Hospital, Incorporated v. Crouch, 292 So.2d 405 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Popham v. Baker, 309 So.2d 222 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

354 So. 2d 105, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15064, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-craig-fladistctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack