Case Name: Maxine Thelma MITCHELL, as Guardian of Charles Roosevelt Mitchell, incompetent, Appellant, v. BURGESS & COOK, INC., a Florida corporation, and Kenneth Lamar Hunt, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1970-08-20
Citations: 238 So. 2d 460
Docket Number: No. M-16
Parties: Maxine Thelma MITCHELL, as Guardian of Charles Roosevelt Mitchell, incompetent, Appellant, v. BURGESS & COOK, INC., a Florida corporation, and Kenneth Lamar Hunt, Appellees.
Judges: CARROLL, DONALD K„ Acting C. J., WIGGINTON, J., and McLANE, RALPH M., Associate Judge, concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 238
Pages: 460–461

Head Matter:
Maxine Thelma MITCHELL, as Guardian of Charles Roosevelt Mitchell, incompetent, Appellant, v. BURGESS & COOK, INC., a Florida corporation, and Kenneth Lamar Hunt, Appellees.
No. M-16.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Aug. 20, 1970.
Dunn & Johnson, and Jeanne Heyward, Miami, for appellant.
Howell, Kirby, Montgomery & D’Aiuto, Jacksonville, for appellees.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of an adverse final judgment rendered upon a jury verdict in favor of appellees. The cause of action sued upon is for the recovery of damages suffered by appellant as a result of appellees' alleged negligent operation of a motor vehicle. The principal question preserved on appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment.
In our review of the issues presented for decision we have given due consideration to the applicable principle that a judgment of the trial court reaches the appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness. The record reveals that although the testimony is conflicting, there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the jury as reflected by its verdict and the conclusion reached by the trial court in denying appellant's motion for a new trial. These findings and conclusions will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing that they are erroneous and unsupported by the record.
We have carefully considered appellant's remaining points charging error by the trial court's refusal to strike appellees' defense of contributory negligence and to grant appellant's requested jury instruction on the doctrine of last clear chance. We find these contentions to be without merit.
The judgment appealed is accordingly affirmed.
CARROLL, DONALD K" Acting C. J., WIGGINTON, J., and McLANE, RALPH M., Associate Judge, concur.
. Old Equity Life Insurance Company v. Levenson, (Fla.App.1965) 177 So.2d 50; Stoller v. Jaffe, (Fla.App.1961) 125 So.2d 310.
. Rodriguez v. Haller, (Fla.App.1965) 177 So.2d 519; Williams v. Scott, (Fla.App.1963) 153 So.2d 18.