PER CURIAM. The record and the briefs in this cause have been examined and the judgment appealed from is affirmed on authority of Glasser v. Leary, Fla., 1953, 67 So.2d 683. Affirmed.
The evidence relating to the severity of the collision and the resultant injuries was not without conflict. We uphold the trial judge's ruling on the authority of Glasser v. Leary, Fla. 1953, 67 So.2d 683. There was evidence of earlier injury. Compare Scott v. Andrews, Fla.App. 1962, 140 So.2d 128. The other contentions, relating to rulings on evidence and claimed improper argument, we find to be without merit.
Diluted to its substance, the appellants' argument is that since the appellees' fault occasioned the accident, the jury, in the absence of any evidence by the appellees, was duty bound to bring back a verdict for all medical expenses incurred, loss of earnings, loss of earning capacity, as well as for pain and suffering, without any regard whatsoever to whether or not the testimony and evidence as to the amount of the expense incurred and the necessity therefor was plausible under the circumstances. I believe this case should be controlled by the principles contained in Glasser v. Leary, Fla. 1953, 67 So.2d 683; Chomont v. Ward, Fla. 1958, 103 So.2d 635; and Heymann v. Fusco, Fla.App. 1961, 132 So.2d 216. The only purpose a new trial will serve is to permit another jury to view the evidence. I would affirm the judgments.
Having heard oral argument and considered the record and briefs, we conclude the judgment appealed should be affirmed upon the authority of Chomont v. Ward, Fla. 1958, 103 So.2d 635. See Glasser v. Leary, Fla. 1953, 67 So.2d 683. HORTON, C.J., PEARSON, J., and MILLEDGE, STANLEY, Associate Judge, concur.
Affirmed. See Glasser v. Leary, Fla. 1953, 67 So.2d 683. CARROLL, CHAS., C.J., and HORTON and PEARSON, JJ., concur.