156 So. 2d 659 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 1963
Appellants were defendants in an action for damages resulting from personal injuries sustained by plaintiff arising out of a motor vehicle collision. From an adverse judgment, defendants have appealed.
In his closing argument to the jury, plaintiff’s counsel placed on a blackboard a mathematical formula which he suggested that the jury use in computing the money value of the past, present and future pain and suffering of plaintiff. Defendants objected to the use of such mathematical formula on the ground that it contained figures not adduced in evidence and therefore invaded the province of the jury. The trial court overruled defendants’ objection, and it is this ruling which is assigned as error.
Appellants invite our attention to the Braddock case,
This question was squarely raised before the Third District Court of Appeal in the Ratner case.
We adopt both the reasoning and the conclusions reached by the Second and Third District Courts of Appeal on the question here considered. It is our view
We have considered the remaining points on appeal but find them to be without substantial merit.
The judgment appealed is affirmed.
. Braddock v. Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company, (Fla.1955) 80 So.2d 662.
. Ratner v. Arrington, (Fla.App.1959) 111 So.2d 82.
. Perdue v. Watson, (Fla.App.1962) 144 So.2d 840.
. See Sirmons v. Pittman, (Fla.App.1962) 138 So.2d 765..