ELINOR J. SCOTT AND JOE SCOTT, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, APPELLEE
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.
Florida appellate court reversed directed verdict for elevator company and reinstated jury verdict for negligence, holding that plaintiffs' expert testimony, though weak, was sufficient to establish proximate cause as a matter of law.
A directed verdict is improper in a negligence action when the plaintiff presents expert testimony, even if weak, that establishes a prima facie case including proximate cause.
[1] In reviewing the propriety of a directed verdict in a negligence action, evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and a directed verdic…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceElinor and Joe Scott brought a negligence claim against Otis Elevator Company. The jury returned a verdict in the Scotts' favor, but the trial court 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 Appellate Review Of Jury Verdicts cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, Judge.
Appellants, Elinor J. Scott and Joe Scott, challenge a final judgment that set aside a jury verdict in their favor on their negligence claim and directed a verdict for appellee, Otis Elevator Company, which was the defendant below, on the basis that the Seotts failed to establish proximate cause. We reverse and remand with directions to reinstate the jury verdict.
When considering the propriety of a directed verdict, the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, with every conflict and inference resolved in his or her favor, and a directed verdict is improper if there is any evidence to support a possible verdict for the nonmoving party. Pritchett v. Jacksonville Auction, Inc., 449 So. 2d 364, 365 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Trend Realty of Gainesville, Inc. v. Bullard, 461 So. 2d 298, 299 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); McDonald v. McGowan, 402 So. 2d 1197, 1199 (Fla. 5th DCA), review dismissed sub nom. Allmon v. McDonald, 411 So. 2d 380 (Fla.1981). A directed verdict in a negligence action should only be entered if the plaintiff could not recover under any reasonable view of the evidence. Pritchett, 449 So .2d at 365.
We conclude that the expert testimony the Seotts offered, while weak, was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of negligence, including the proximate cause element.
REVERSED and REMANDED with directions to reinstate the jury verdict.
WEBSTER and MICKLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eppler v. Tarmac Am., Inc., 752 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2000)…directed verdict should only be granted if the party opposing the directed verdict could not prevail under any reasonable view of the evidence. See Bruce Constr. Corp. v. State Exch. Bank, 102 So. 2d 288, 291 (Fla.1958); Scott v. Otis Elevator Co., 680 So. 2d 462, 462 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). On a motion for directed verdict, the non-moving party is entitled to all reasonable inferences from the facts that would support his or her claim. See Bruce Constr. Corp., 102 So. 2d at 291; Stringer v. Katzell, 674 So. 2d…
-
Scott v. TPI Rests., Inc., 798 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…3d DCA 2001); Edwards v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 718 So. 2d 881, 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (citing Burch v. Strange, 126 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)); Houghton [*909] v. Bond, 680 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); see also Scott v. Otis Elevator Co., 680 So. 2d 462, 462 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (“A directed verdict in a negligence action should only be entered if the plaintiff could not recover under any reasonable view of the evidence.”) (citing Pritchett v. Jacksonville Auction, Inc., 449 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 1st DCA…
Authorities Cited
- McDONALD v. McGOWAN, 402 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Pritchett v. Jacksonville Auction, Inc., 449 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Trend Realty OF Gainesville, Inc. v. Bullard, 461 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)