Norman v. Mullin, 249 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971). · Go Syfert
Search
Norman v. Mullin, 249 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Darragh (fladistctapp, 2012-06-08)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Darragh
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
Co. v. Garrison, 336 So.2d 423, 425 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Norman v. Mullin, 249 So.2d 733, 734 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971). 1 Accordingly, we reverse the por tion of the verdict awarding future economic damages, and remand for a new trial as to future economic damages only.
discussed Cited "see" Diaz v. Green
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Norman v. Mullin, 249 So.2d 733 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971); Capone v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 233 So.2d 175 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 238 So.2d 105 (Fla.1970); see also Lawn v. Wasserman, 248 So.2d 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971).
M. E. NORMAN, d/b/a Import Motors
v.
Paul A. MULLIN and Lena Mae Mullin
No. 70-543.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Jun 23, 1971.
249 So. 2d 733
John T. Allen, Jr. and Harrison, Greene, Mann, Davenport, Rowe & Stanton, St. Petersburg, for appellant., Edward D. Carlson, Jr. and Tanney & Forde, Clearwater, for appellees.
Hobson, Mann, McNulty.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

In this negligence action plaintiff-appel-lees were awarded a judgment against appellant which included future loss of wages, earning capacity and medical and hospitalization expenses. Although requested, the trial judge failed to charge the jury on their duty to reduce such future damages to present value.[1] This was reversible error.[2]

As to liability, no meritorious question is raised that the jury verdict was improper, and the verdict thereto appertaining is amply supported by the evidence. The new trial awarded herein should therefore be only as to damages, and the judgment is affirmed as to liability. All other points raised on appeal, including the one on cross-appeal, are without merit or are rendered moot.

Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed as to liability but reversed, and a new trial awarded, as to damages alone.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

HOBSON, A. C. J., and MANN and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
1

. Instruction 6.10, Florida Standard Jury Instructions.

2

See, e. g., Dupuis v. Heider (1934), 113 Fla. 079, 152 So. 659; Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Young (1932), 104 Fla. 541, 140 So. 407; and Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Lassiter (1909), 58 Fla. 234, 50 So. 428.