History
  • No items yet
midpage
Carlton v. Vaux
102 Fla. 708
Fla.
1931
Check Treatment

Lead Opinion

In this case the evidence does not show liability of the defendant below for the entire amount of the damages recovered. Where the evidence does not show liability for the amount of damages awarded, and is so lacking in essential particulars that are reasonably appropriate for an estimate of the damages which might be recoverable from the defendant, that the court cannot with satisfactory certainty determine what would be a proper remittitur, the judgment must be reversed for a new trial. Southern Utilities Co. v. Davis, 83 Fla. 366, 92 So. 683; Plant City v. Muse, 71 Fla. 126; 70 So. 1005; A. C. L. R. Co. v. Brash, 73 Fla. 478, 74 So. 503. *Page 709

Reversed.

WHITFIELD, P.J., AND TERRELL, J., concur.

BUFORD, C.J., AND BROWN, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

ELLIS, J., dissents.






Dissenting Opinion

There is sufficient evidence to support the verdict as to Carlton's liability as joint tort feasor.

Case Details

Case Name: Carlton v. Vaux
Court Name: Supreme Court of Florida
Date Published: Aug 3, 1931
Citation: 102 Fla. 708
Court Abbreviation: Fla.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.