362 So. 2d 85 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 1978
Charles Ray TIDWELL, Sr., As Natural Father and Guardian of Charles Ray Tidwell, Jr., a Minor, and Charles Ray Tidwell, Sr., Individually, Appellants,
v.
William H. TOCA, Yolanda Toca, and Allstate Insurance Company, Appellees.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Mark J. Feldman, Miami, for appellants.
Adams & Ward and Ramon E. Rasco, Miami, for appellees.
Before HAVERFIELD, C.J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiffs suffered a jury verdict against them and appeal the final judgment upon a claim that the jury was inconsistent. The verdict was upon special interrogatories, as follows:
"1. What percentage of negligence, if any, do you find that WILLIAM H. TOCA, was guilty of in causing this accident?% 0
2. What percentage of negligence, if any, do you find that CHARLES RAY *86 TIDWELL, JUNIOR, was guilty of in causing this accident?% 100
3. What is the total amount of damages, if any, that you find CHARLES RAY TIDWELL, JR., has sustained as a direct and proximate result of the accident?$4,500.00
4. What is the total amount of damages, if any, you find, that CHARLES RAY TIDWELL, SR. as natural father and guardian of CHARLES RAY TIDWELL, JR. has sustained as a direct and proximate result of the accident?$3,500.00 SO SAY WE ALL"
We hold that the verdict is not inconsistent under the rule stated in Crawford v. DiMicco, 216 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968). A party may not complain of a verdict form to which he does not object. It is clear that in the instant case, the verdict as submitted permitted a finding of an amount of damages without a finding of liability for the damages.
Appellants' reliance upon this court's decision in Sweeney v. Wiggins, 350 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), is misplaced since that case concerned a verdict which was clearly improper and was rejected by the trial court.
Affirmed.
