From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carlton v. Vaux

Supreme Court of Florida, Division B
Aug 3, 1931
136 So. 344 (Fla. 1931)

Opinion

Opinion filed August 3, 1931.

Writ of error to the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County; Elwyn Thomas, Judge.

Judgment reversed; Ellis, J., dissenting.

Alto Adams, of Fort Pierce, for Plaintiff in Error;

G. R. Nottingham and Burr S. Stottle, of Fort Pierce, for Defendant in Error.


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.

Reversed.

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

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

ELLIS, J., dissents.


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


Summaries of

Carlton v. Vaux

Supreme Court of Florida, Division B
Aug 3, 1931
136 So. 344 (Fla. 1931)
Case details for

Carlton v. Vaux

Case Details

Full title:WRIGHT CARLTON, Plaintiff in Error, vs. F. T. VAUX, Defendant in Error

Court:Supreme Court of Florida, Division B

Date published: Aug 3, 1931

Citations

136 So. 344 (Fla. 1931)
136 So. 344

Citing Cases

Great American Insurance v. Suarez

There is, however, an exception to the rule that where liability is shown but the damages not fully proved…