Wright v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 256 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). · Go Syfert
Wright v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 256 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Limor v. Conli (fladistctapp, 1982-11-23)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Limor v. Conli
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
Because appellant failed to request a jury instruction on damages and objected neither to the verdict forms nor to the instructions, accord Golden v. Harrell; see Wright v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Miami, 256 So.2d 56 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.470, we reject his contention.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Elouise WRIGHT
v.
COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF MIAMI, a Florida corporation
No. 71-385.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Dec 15, 1971.
256 So. 2d 56
1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 5556
W. George Allen, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant., J. T. Blackard of Knight, Peters, Hoeveler, Pickle, Niemoeller & Flynn, Miami, for appellee.
Cross, Owen, Reed.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published
OWEN, Judge.

Appellant became ill upon discovering a foreign substance in a bottle of appellee’s product from which she was drinking. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant appellee and the appeal is from the final judgment entered thereon.

The only questions raised on appeal concern the correctness of certain jury instructions given by the court. The record fails to disclose that appellant made any objection to the instructions. At oral argument appellant’s counsel suggested that an appropriate objection was made at the charge conference, but this conference was not transcribed and made a part of the record on appeal, nor was it within the appellant’s designations to the reporter. It is the responsibility and duty of the appellant to provide the appellate court with the record sufficient to review the matter assigned as[*57] error, Conlee Construction Co. v. Cay Construction Co., Fla.App.1969, 221 So.2d 792. Absent a record showing of a timely objection to the jury instructions' which appellant now assails, the court’s giving such instructions may not be assigned as error, and we cannot consider the merits of the questions presented by appellant. Rule 1.-470(b) R.C.P., 30 F.S.A.; Eicholz v. Frey, Fla.App.1965, 173 So.2d 771, and Smith v. Tantlinger, Fla.App.1958, 102 So.2d 840.

Affirmed.

REED, C. J., and CROSS, J., concur.