Back

eCases

Search Menu

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Document Info

DocketNumber： 79-926

Citation Numbers： 385 So. 2d 124

Judges： Barkdull, Hubbart and Daniel S. Pearson

Filed Date： 6/17/1980

Status： Precedential

Modified Date： 3/3/2016

385 So. 2d 124 (1980)
J.M. FIELDS, INC., d/b/a J.M. Fields, a Florida Corporation, Appellant,
v.
Shirley SMUCKLER, etc., et al., Appellees.
No. 79-926.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
June 17, 1980. Rehearing Denied July 21, 1980.
Horton, Perse & Ginsberg and Edward A. Perse, Hawkesworth & Schmick, Miami, for appellant.

Daniels & Hicks and Mark Hicks, Feldman, Abramson, Smith & Magidson, Miami, for appellees.

Before BARKDULL, HUBBART and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The final judgment under review is affirmed upon a holding that: (a) the trial court did not err in denying the appellant's motion for directed verdict in this cause as the issue of proximate cause was, on this record, properly one for the jury to decide, Vining v. Avis Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc., 354 So. 2d 54, 55-56 (Fla. 1977); Nicholas v. Miami Burglar Alarm Co. Inc., 339 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1976); Holley v. Mt. Zion Terrace Apartments, Inc., 382 So. 2d 98 (Fla.3d DCA 1980); Angell v. F. Avanzini Lumber Co., 363 So. 2d 571 (Fla.2d DCA 1978); Tamiami Gun Shop v. Klein, 109 So. 2d 189 (Fla.3rd DCA 1959); 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(b)(1) (1976); see Huddleston v. United States, 415 U.S. 814, 824, 94 S. Ct. 1262, 1268, 39 L. Ed. 2d 782 (1974); Hetherton v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 593 F.2d 526 (3rd Cir.1979); Underwood v. United States, 356 F.2d 92 (5th Cir.1966); Franco v. Bunyard, 261 Ark. 144, 547 S.W.2d 91 (1977); (b) the trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion for a new trial as there was, on this record, sufficient evidence to sustain the jury's compensatory damage award, Savarese v. Hill, 128 So. 2d 775, 776, n. 4 (Fla.3d DCA 1961); (c) the trial court did not err in declining to strike the claim for punitive damages, as, in this record, the claim was properly submitted to the jury, Doral Country Club, Inc. v. Lindgren Plumbing Co., 175 So. 2d 570, 571 (Fla.3d DCA 1965); and, (d) the trial court did not err in denying the appellant's motion for a set-off, as, on this record, no right to a set-off existed. Devlin v. McMannis, 231 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 1970).

Affirmed.