GILDA L. FERNANDEZ AND MCDILL COLUMBUS CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
MAGALI A. FLORES, FRANK A. FERNANDEZ AND VIRGINIA E. FERNANDEZ, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this automobile accident case, the court affirmed a jury verdict for the plaintiff Flores against defendant Gilda Fernandez, but reversed a directed verdict for third-party defendant Frank Fernandez on Gilda's negligence claim based on allegedly obstructed parking, finding a jury question existed on whether vehicles parked on the public right-of-way contributed to the accident.
The court affirmed the jury verdict for Flores against Gilda, finding it supported by competent, substantial evidence. The court reversed the directed verdict for Frank, holding that genuine jury questions existed regarding whether the vehicles obstructed the public right-of-way and whether such obstruction contributed to the accident. The directed verdict error did not prejudice the jury's main verdict sufficiently to warrant a new trial on all issues.
[1] A jury verdict supported by competent, substantial evidence will be affirmed on appeal.
[2] A directed verdict for a defendant is improper when there is a jury question as to whether the defendant's actions obstructed a public right-of-way and contributed to an…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Frank testified that his van and wrecker were parked on the shoulder of North Glen Avenue and not on his property. Gilda testified that the vehicles obstructed her view. Therefore, there is a jury question as to whether the vehicles obstructed the public right-of-way and, if so, whether the obstruction was a contributing cause of the accident.”
Establishes the basis for reversing the directed verdict—conflicting testimony created a genuine jury question precluding summary judgment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn automobile accident occurred at the intersection of West Cordelia and North Glen Avenue in Tampa. Magali Flores sued Gilda Fernandez for injuries s…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Third Party Complaint cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Chief Judge.
This appeal arises from an automobile accident that occurred at the intersection of West Cordelia and North Glen Avenue in Tampa. Magali Flores sued Gilda Fernandez (Gilda) for injuries sustained in the accident. Gilda filed a third party complaint against one Frank Fernandez (Frank), the owner of a house at the intersection. Gilda and Frank are not related. Gilda alleged that Frank negligently parked several vehicles on the public right-of-way near his property, thereby obstructing her view of the intersection.
At the conclusion of Gilda’s case-in-chief, the court directed a verdict for Frank on the third party claim. Thereafter, the jury returned a verdict for Flores on the main claim. Gilda appeals both verdicts.
We affirm the jury verdict and judgment entered on the main claim in favor of Flores. Gilda’s points on appeal, that the court erred in excluding certain evidence, that the verdict was excessive and against the manifest weight of the evidence, and that the court erred in denying her a new trial, are without merit. The jury verdict is supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record. Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad, 349 So. 2d 1187 (Fla.1977); Wash-Bowl, Inc. v. Wroton, 432 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).
We reverse, however, the directed verdict in favor of Frank on the third party claim. Frank testified that his van and wrecker were parked on the shoulder of North Glen Avenue and not on his property. Gilda testified that the vehicles obstructed her view. Therefore, there is a jury question as to whether the vehicles obstructed the public right-of-way and, if so, whether the obstruction was a contributing cause of the accident. Morales v. Costa, 427 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA), petition for review denied, 434 So. 2d 886 (Fla.1983). We do not agree with appellant, however, that the incorrectly granted directed verdict so prejudicially affected the jury’s verdict in the main case that a new trial on all issues is necessary.
Accordingly, the judgment in favor of Flores is affirmed. The directed verdict in favor of Frank is reversed. Gilda’s third party claim against Frank shall be reinstated as an action for contribution.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
SCHOONOVER and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. Davis, 974 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 2007)…2d 552, 553 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (reversing summary judgment in favor of a defendant landowner where foliage protruding from defendant’s property into the right-of-way obstructed approaching motorist’s view of the intersection); Fernandez v. Flores, 467 So. 2d 364, 365 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (finding that a jury question was presented where car of property owner parked on shoulder of road obstructed approaching motorist’s view of the intersection); Armas v. Metro. Dade County, 429 So. 2d 59, 60-61 (Fla. 3d DCA 19…1 / 2
-
Gibbs v. Hernandez, 810 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…, 468 So. 2d 468, 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (reversing a directed verdict for defendant because plaintiffs awareness of a dangerous condition and how he negotiated the condition was a comparative negligence question for the jury); Fernandez v. Flores, 467 So. 2d 364, 365 (Fla. 2d [*1038] DCA 1985) (holding a jury question existed as to whether vehicles parked on a road shoulder obstructed a driver’s view and contributed to an accident). Freedom relies on Metropolitan Dade County v. Colina, 456 So. 2d 1233 (Fla…
-
Piedra v. City OF N. BAY Vill., 193 So. 3d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…2d 552, 553 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (reversing summary judgment in favor of a defendant landowner where foliage protruding from defendant’s property into the right-of-way obstructed approaching motorist’s view of the intersection); Fernandez v. Flores, 467 So. 2d 364, 365 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (finding that a jury question was presented where car of property owner parked on shoulder of road obstructed approaching motorist’s view of the intersection); Armas v. Metro. Dade County, 429 So. 2d 59, 60-61 (Fla. 3d DCA 19…
Authorities Cited
- Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. & William A. Cagle, 349 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 1977)
- Morales v. Costa, 427 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Wash-Bowl, Inc. v. Wroton, 432 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)