Wright v. Coca Cola Bottling Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wright v. Coca Cola Bottling Co.

256 So. 2d 56, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 5556

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 15, 1971

DocketNo. 71-385

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 256 So. 2d 56 (Wright v. Coca Cola Bottling Co.) 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

Wright v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 256 So. 2d 56, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 5556 (Fla. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

OWEN, Judge.

Appellant became ill upon discovering a foreign substance in a bottle of appellee’s product from which she was drinking. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant appellee and the appeal is from the final judgment entered thereon.

The only questions raised on appeal concern the correctness of certain jury instructions given by the court. The record fails to disclose that appellant made any objection to the instructions. At oral argument appellant’s counsel suggested that an appropriate objection was made at the charge conference, but this conference was not transcribed and made a part of the record on appeal, nor was it within the appellant’s designations to the reporter. It is the responsibility and duty of the appellant to provide the appellate court with the record sufficient to review the matter assigned as [57]*57error, Conlee Construction Co. v. Cay Construction Co., Fla.App.1969, 221 So.2d 792. Absent a record showing of a timely objection to the jury instructions' which appellant now assails, the court’s giving such instructions may not be assigned as error, and we cannot consider the merits of the questions presented by appellant. Rule 1.-470(b) R.C.P., 30 F.S.A.; Eicholz v. Frey, Fla.App.1965, 173 So.2d 771, and Smith v. Tantlinger, Fla.App.1958, 102 So.2d 840.

Affirmed.

REED, C. J., and CROSS, J., concur.

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

OWEN, Judge.

Appellant became ill upon discovering a foreign substance in a bottle of appellee’s product from which she was drinking. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant appellee and the appeal is from the final judgment entered thereon.

The only questions raised on appeal concern the correctness of certain jury instructions given by the court. The record fails to disclose that appellant made any objection to the instructions. At oral argument appellant’s counsel suggested that an appropriate objection was made at the charge conference, but this conference was not transcribed and made a part of the record on appeal, nor was it within the appellant’s designations to the reporter. It is the responsibility and duty of the appellant to provide the appellate court with the record sufficient to review the matter assigned as [57]*57error, Conlee Construction Co. v. Cay Construction Co., Fla.App.1969, 221 So.2d 792. Absent a record showing of a timely objection to the jury instructions' which appellant now assails, the court’s giving such instructions may not be assigned as error, and we cannot consider the merits of the questions presented by appellant. Rule 1.-470(b) R.C.P., 30 F.S.A.; Eicholz v. Frey, Fla.App.1965, 173 So.2d 771, and Smith v. Tantlinger, Fla.App.1958, 102 So.2d 840.

Affirmed.

REED, C. J., and CROSS, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 So. 2d 56, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 5556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-coca-cola-bottling-co-fladistctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack