Case Name: Luis Jose SALVADOR, Appellant, v. Aida MUNOZ, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1966-12-27
Citations: 193 So. 2d 442
Docket Number: No. 66-285
Parties: Luis Jose SALVADOR, Appellant, v. Aida MUNOZ, Appellee.
Judges: Before PEARSON and SWANN, JJ.,. and NATHAN, RAYMOND G., Associate-Judge.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 193
Pages: 442–442

Head Matter:
Luis Jose SALVADOR, Appellant, v. Aida MUNOZ, Appellee.
No. 66-285.
District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.
Dec. 27, 1966.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 25, 1967.
Hawkesworth & Kay, Miami, for appellant.
Wolfson & Diamond, Miami Beach, Joe-N. Unger, Miami, for appellee.
Before PEARSON and SWANN, JJ.,. and NATHAN, RAYMOND G., Associate-Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The defendant, Luis Jose Salvador,, appeals a final judgment based on a jury verdict in a personal injury case. The mam-thrust of the appeal is that the trial judge-erred in failing to grant appellant a new trial because the court's instruction relative to the recoverability of damages for permanent injury was not predicated upon any evidence of permanent injury. We find' that plaintiff's testimony of continuing pain and inability to work was adequate to-justify a charge on permanency without medical corroboration. Cf. William Penn-Hotel, Inc. v. Cohen, Fla.App.1958, 101 So.2d 404.
Appellant presents three other points directed to procedure at the trial of the cause. We find that these points-do not present reversible error. In particular, appellant's point objecting to the striking of certain defenses because of his-failure to answer interrogatories does not present reversible error. The record reveals that the appellant not only did not object but actually acquiesced in the ruling and asserted its correctness before the trial court. See Fla.Stat.1965, § 59.07(1), F.S.A.; Howland v. Cates, Fla.1949, 43 So.2d 848, 851.
Affirmed.