Case Name: Harold H. WEISS, Appellant, v. Harry GOLDMAN and Paul Goldman, d/b/a Goldman's Service Station, and Alex Lingo, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1960-05-26
Citations: 120 So. 2d 812
Docket Number: No. 59-408
Parties: Harold H. WEISS, Appellant, v. Harry GOLDMAN and Paul Goldman, d/b/a Goldman’s Service Station, and Alex Lingo, Appellees.
Judges: HORTON, C. J., PEARSON, J., and MILLEDGE, STANLEY, Associate Judge, concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 120
Pages: 812–813

Head Matter:
Harold H. WEISS, Appellant, v. Harry GOLDMAN and Paul Goldman, d/b/a Goldman’s Service Station, and Alex Lingo, Appellees.
No. 59-408.
District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.
May 26, 1960.
. Klein, Moore & Kline, Miami Beach, for appellant.
Blackwell, Walker & Gray and Paul R. Larkin, Jr., Miami, for appellees.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff in a personal injury action has appealed from á judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict finding defendant guilty of negligence and awarding damages in the amount of $795.55 plus' costs. This award was less than the plaintiff's total out-of-pocket expenses. Motion for new trial, made by the plaintiff, was denied and judgment was entered pursuant to the jury's verdict.
The sole point raised is whether the trial court erred in denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial upon the contention damages awarded were inadequate because the jury failed to consider all the elements of damages involved.
Having heard oral argument and considered the record and briefs, we conclude the judgment appealed should be affirmed upon the authority of Chomont v. Ward, Fla.1958, 103 So.2d 635. See Glasser v. Leary, Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 683.
HORTON, C. J., PEARSON, J., and MILLEDGE, STANLEY, Associate Judge, concur.