Case Name: SAFELITE GLASS CORP. d/b/a Safelite Auto Glass and Ernest Henly Haughton, Jr., Appellants, v. Willie P. SAMUEL and Mary Samuel, his wife, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1999-07-28
Citations: 736 So. 2d 1283
Docket Number: No. 98-3130
Parties: SAFELITE GLASS CORP. d/b/a Safelite Auto Glass and Ernest Henly Haughton, Jr., Appellants, v. Willie P. SAMUEL and Mary Samuel, his wife, Appellees.
Judges: STONE, POLEN, and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 736
Pages: 1283–1284

Head Matter:
SAFELITE GLASS CORP. d/b/a Safelite Auto Glass and Ernest Henly Haughton, Jr., Appellants, v. Willie P. SAMUEL and Mary Samuel, his wife, Appellees.
No. 98-3130.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
July 28, 1999.
Hinda Klein of Conroy, Simberg & Ga-non, P.A., Hollywood, for appellants.
Daniel E. Jacobson of Jacobson, Cohen & Cohen, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appel-lees.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the final judgment. Appellants seek a new trial on the ground that the trial court erred in giving a jury instruction based on Via v. Tillinghast, 153 So.2d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). We conclude that the issue has not been preserved for review because the argument asserted here was not presented to the trial court. We further note, in any event, that the instruction based on Via should not have been given for the reasons articulated in Gordon's Tractor Service, Inc. v. Bilello, 336 So.2d 1208 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).
STONE, POLEN, and GROSS, JJ., concur.