Case Name: Alice Ruby FOURNIER and Paul Fournier, her husband, Appellants, v. Marie A. LOTT and Lawrence Everett Lott, her husband, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1962-10-30
Citations: 145 So. 2d 885
Docket Number: No. 62-76
Parties: Alice Ruby FOURNIER and Paul Fournier, her husband, Appellants, v. Marie A. LOTT and Lawrence Everett Lott, her husband, Appellees.
Judges: Before CARROLL, BARKDULL and HENDRY, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 145
Pages: 885–886

Head Matter:
Alice Ruby FOURNIER and Paul Fournier, her husband, Appellants, v. Marie A. LOTT and Lawrence Everett Lott, her husband, Appellees.
No. 62-76.
District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.
Oct. 30, 1962.
Donald F. Frost and Kenneth L. Rys-kamp, Miami, for appellants.
Ross, Reinhardt & Preddy, Miami, for appellees.
Before CARROLL, BARKDULL and HENDRY, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellants, plaintiffs below, seek review of a judgment for the defendants entered pursuant to a jury verdict in a negligence action, wherein the appellants were seeking damages for injuries sustained by the appellant, Alice R. Fournier, when a motorcycle on which she was riding was involved in an accident with the appellees' automobile.
The principal point raised by the appellants in the instant case is that the lower court erred in failing to give a certain jury instruction on non-imputable neg ligence. While there is no question that a party is entitled to have appropriate instructions given to the jury, the particular instructions to be given depend upon the issues developed by the pleadings and supported by the evidence. Garrison v. Hertz Corporation, Fla.App. 1961, 129 So.2d 452; Sirmons v. Pittman, Fla.App.1962, 138 So.2d 765; 32 Fla.Jur., Trial, § 141. In the instant case, there is no basis for this instruction as the plaintiffs' complaint and evidence traveled on the sole negligence of the defendants. Therefore, the only question to be decided by the jury was whether or not the defendants were guilty of negligence proximately causing the accident. The jury determined this issue in favor of the defendants. The record on appeal contains substantial, competent evidence to sustain the jury's verdict, and we therefore affirm the order of the lower court.
Affirmed.