OTTO C. STEGEMANN, APPELLANT,
v.
CATHERINE HITE AND RICHARD HITE, HER HUSBAND, 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.
A pedestrian injured in an automobile accident at an intersection sued the driver for negligence. The driver denied negligence and claimed the plaintiff was contributorily negligent, but the jury found for the plaintiff. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict.
The appellate court held that there was adequate evidentiary basis upon which the jury could reach its verdict, and the factual dispute regarding negligence was properly resolved by the jury under appropriate instructions from the trial judge.
“The test is not what an appellate court would have decided had they been on the jury, but whether or not they can say, after-viewing the case in its most favorable aspect toward the successful litigant, that the jury as reasonable men could not have found the verdict that they did.”
Establishes the standard of review for jury verdicts on appeal—appellate courts do not reweigh evidence but ask whether a reasonable jury could have reached the verdict
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCatherine Hite, a pedestrian, sustained personal injuries at the intersection of Jefferson Avenue and 17th Street in Miami Beach, Florida, allegedly c…
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 Standard Of Appellate Review cases and more on FLexlaw
HORTON, Judge.
This appeal is to review a final judgment for the appellee, Catherine Hite, entered by the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida. The appellee, a pedestrian, sustained personal injuries allegedly caused by the negligent operation of an automobile at the intersection of Jefferson Avenue and 17th Street in the City of Miami Beach, Florida. The appellant made a general denial to the charge of negligence and interposed a plea of contributory negligence. Upon these issues, the cause was submitted to the jury, resulting in a verdict favorable to the appellee.
The appellant has urged three grounds upon which he seeks a reversal of the judgment below, all of which challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, i. e.: (1) The sufficiency of the evidence of the appellee to support a finding that the appellant was guilty of negligence; (2) Sufficiency of the evidence as a whole upon which conclusion could be based that the appellee was injured solely by her own contributory negligence; and (3) Whether or not all the evidence is sufficiently clear to show that the verdict was wrong and that the lower court was in error in denying the appellant’s motions for directed verdict and a new trial.
The entire record in this cause has been carefully reviewed and considered and we find that there was adequate basis upon which the jury could have arrived at the conclusion reached in this case. The test is not what an appellate court would have decided had they been on the jury, but whether or not they can say, after-viewing the case in its most favorable aspect toward the successful litigant, that the jury as reasonable men could not have found the verdict that they did. Merchants’ Transport Co. v. Daniel, 109 Fla. 496, 149 So. 401; Parrish v. Clark, 107 Fla. 598, 145 So. 848; Jennings v. Pope, 101 Fla. 1476, 136 So. 471.
We therefore hold that the factual dispute as to the existence of negligence was resolved by the jurors under appropriate instructions by the trial judge. Williams v. Smelt, Fla.1955, 83 So. 2d 1. Accordingly, the judgment of the lower court is hereby affirmed.
CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and PEARSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Florida Living FOR THE Retired v. Koltnow, 143 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
-
Herman v. Dade Linen & Furniture Co., 143 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)…nd with the installation of transformers they would operate properly. In this state of the record we will not substitute our judgment for that of the jury. Merchants’ Transp. Co. v. Daniel, 109 Fla. 496, 149 So. 401. Stegemann v. Hite, Fla.App.1957, 96 So. 2d 595. In addition, the plaintiff has raised two other points pertaining to (1) the admissibility of certain evidence which was tendered by defendant and excluded upon objection of plaintiff, and (2) the propriety of a directed verdict for plaintiff upon…
-
Dade Cnty. v. McKENNA, 179 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…hey been on the jury, but whether or not they can say, after viewing the case in its most favorable aspect toward the successful litigant, that the jury as reasonable men could not have found the verdict as they did. Stegemann v. Hite, Fla.App.1957, 96 So. 2d 595. There was substantial competent evidence of negligence to support the jury verdict, and there has been no showing of error by the trial court. The judgment is therefore Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Merchs. Transp. Co. v. Daniel, 109 Fla. 496 (Fla. 1933)
- Jennings v. Pope, 136 So. 471 (Fla. 1931)
- Parrish v. Clark, 107 Fla. 598 (Fla. 1933)
- Williams v. Smelt, 83 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1955)