Steeprow v. Penfold
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED KENNETH G. STEEPROW, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D15-3967 MICHAEL R. PENFOLD, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed May 13, 2016 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, David Dugan, Judge. Kenneth G. Steeprow, Cocoa, pro se. Elizabeth C. Wheeler, of Elizabeth C. Wheeler, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Kenneth G. Steeprow appeals a final judgment entered against him in his automobile negligence claim against Michael R. Penfold. The final judgment was entered after the trial court granted Mr. Penfold’s motion for a directed verdict during a jury trial. Mr. Steeprow asserts that the trial court erred in granting the directed verdict and in making certain evidentiary rulings during the trial. We affirm. As the appellant, Mr. Steeprow has the burden of demonstrating error. Because no transcript of the proceedings exists, our review is limited to the pleadings, judgment and other matters contained in the record. In the absence of an adequate transcript on appeal, a judgment, which is not fundamentally erroneous, must be affirmed. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979). Mr. Steeprow also has not complied with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(4), which governs the preparation of a record when no transcript of the proceedings is available. Because no reversible error has been demonstrated from the record provided to us, we affirm. AFFIRMED. ORFINGER, WALLIS and EDWARDS, JJ., concur. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
