Case Name: Francisco VEGA and Adelida Vega, his wife, et al., Appellants, v. COSMOPOLITAN MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1976-08-17
Citations: 336 So. 2d 660
Docket Number: No. 75-1556
Parties: Francisco VEGA and Adelida Vega, his wife, et al., Appellants, v. COSMOPOLITAN MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
Judges: Before PEARSON and NATHAN, JJ., and SACK, MARTIN, Associate Judge.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 336
Pages: 660–661

Head Matter:
Francisco VEGA and Adelida Vega, his wife, et al., Appellants, v. COSMOPOLITAN MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
No. 75-1556.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Aug. 17, 1976.
Edmond W. Frank, Miami, for appellants.
Pyszka, Kessler, Adams & Solomon, Richard M. Gale, Miami, for appellee.
Before PEARSON and NATHAN, JJ., and SACK, MARTIN, Associate Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The appellants, Francisco and Adelida Vega, were the plaintiffs in the trial court. They recovered a verdict in the amount of approximately $400. This appeal is from that judgment.
Errors are assigned upon an evidentiary ruling and claimed prejudicial statements by the attorney for the defendant made at closing argument. The plaintiffs, after re ceiving the verdict, did not file a motion for a new trial. We conclude that under these circumstances, thes claimed inadequacy of the verdict was not presented to the trial court.
The judgment must be affirmed upon the authority of the rule stated in Morrison v. Bohne, Fla.App.1973, 274 So.2d 896, and authorities cited therein. See also: O'Leary v. Watson, Fla.App.1972, 263 So.2d 643; Malec v. Halter, Fla.App.1968, 216 So.2d 782; Tampa Transit Lines, Inc. v. Smith, Fla.App.1963, 155 So.2d 557.
Affirmed.