JACKSONVILLE TRACTION CO.
v.
J. H. GREENE
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.
Jacksonville Traction Co. seeks reversal of a $2,500 damages judgment in a negligence suit brought by a passenger injured when a streetcar operator allegedly closed the gate and raised the step while the passenger was alighting. The Florida Supreme Court affirms, holding that a jury's verdict based on a single witness's credible testimony, when believed by the jury and approved by the trial judge, cannot be reversed absent clear evidence that the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence.
An appellate court is not warranted in reversing a judgment solely on the facts in the absence of a showing that the jury acted on considerations outside the evidence. A plaintiff's uncorroborated testimony alone, if reasonable on its face and believed by the jury, can carry the burden of proof unless contradictory evidence is so strong and positive that the verdict is clearly against the manifest weight of the evidence considered as a whole.
“the plaintiff's uncorroborated testimony alone, if reasonable on its face, and believed and accepted by the jury as true, can carry the burden of proof unless it is made to appear that there was adduced at the trial contradictory evidence opposed thereto, so strong and positive that it may be said that the verdict of the jury approving the single witness is clearly, on the whole record, against the manifest weight of the evidence considered as an entirety”
Establishes the controlling standard for appellate review of jury verdicts based on single-witness testimony in civil cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA passenger on Jacksonville Traction Co.'s streetcar was injured when the car operator allegedly closed the gate and raised the step while the passeng…
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 Manifest Weight Of The Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Trial was had of a suit involving an alleged injury sustained by defendant in error as passenger .on plaintiff in error’s street car. The basis of the action was alleged negligence on the car operator’s part in closing the street car gate and raising the step of the car while the passenger was in the act of alighting, thereby throwing plaintiff to the street and injuring him. The recovery was $2,500.00 damages which the traction company seeks to have reversed on writ of error.
*317The only testimony offered tending to show how the ■alleged injury occurred was that of the plaintiff himself and that of the motorman on the street car. The testimony of the two was in direct and irreconcilable conflict. However, ■there may be gleaned from the record a sufficient basis in the evidence as an entirety to present a jury question as to the credibility of plaintiff as opposed .to that of the street -car operator. The jury believed plaintiff as it had the right to do under the circumstances shown by the record of what occurred at the trial. The trial judge who saw and heard both witnesses approved the verdict by denying a motion for a new trial. Under the circumstances an appellate court is not warranted in reversing the judgment solely on the facts, in the absence of some showing that the jury must have acted on considerations outside the evidence, in returning the verdict that it did.
The maxim of the law is ponderantur testes, non numerantur — -witnesses are not counted, but their testimony is to be weighed. It is the general rule in civil cases that a claim or defense can be established by a single witness. 6 Jones on Evidence (2nd Ed.) page 4885. As an incident of their province to determine facts, the credibility of witnesses is peculiarly a matter for the jury. Hubbard v. Rankin, 71 Ill. 129.
The necessary meaning of the rule last stated is that the plaintiff’s uncorroborated testimony alone, if reasonable on its face, and believed and accepted by the jury as true, can carry the burden of proof unless it is made to appear that there was adduced at the trial contradictory evidence opposed thereto, so strong and positive that it may be said that- the verdict of the jury approving the single witness is clearly, on the whole record, against the manifest weight of the evidence considered as an entirety. A. C. L. R. R. *318Co. v. Alverson, 95 Fla. 73, 116 Sou. Rep. 30; Williams v. State, 100 Fla. 814, 129 Sou. Rep. 456; Wilson v. Maddox, 97 Fla. 489, 121 Sou. Rep. 805. For a detailed statement of the limitations which are recognized on the application of the foregoing rule see the opinion of this Court in Calloway v. State, 112 Fla. 599, 152 Sou. Rep. 429, wherein Mr. Justice Ellis has stated the scope of application and limitations upon the rule which this Court recognizes and follows.
Affirmed.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown,. and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Publ'g Co. v. Copeland, 89 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1956)…reto, so strong and positive that it may be said that the verdict of the jury approving the single witness -is clearly, on the whole record, against the manifest weight of the evidence considered as an entirety.” Jacksonville Traction Co. v. Greene, 113 Fla. 316, 151 So. 523, 524. The evidence in this case is not complicated. • The testimony of the drivers of the two vehicles is in conflict as to which driver transgressed into the traffic lane of the other and as to the traffic lane in which the impact occ…
-
In re The Est. of Hugh N. Richmond, 298 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…wife. A case is not to be decided by the number of witnesses each side calls but rather by the quality of the testimony given by the witnesses. Heitman v. Davis, 1937, 127 Fla. 1, 172 So. 705; Jacksonville Traction Co. v. Greene, 1933, 113 Fla. 316, 151 So. 523. The order denying the petition for revocation of probate is affirmed. HOBSON, A. C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.…
-
Williams v. Puleo, 70 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1954)…lliams cannot be held liable. Florida Cent. & Pen. R. R. Co. v. Williams, 37 Fla. 406, 20 So. 558. In so far as the above facts were controverted, it should be observed that credibility is a matter for the jury. Jacksonville Traction Co. v. Greene, 113 Fla. 316, 151 So. 523. The instruction to the jury reproduced earlier in this opinion was proper, and the jury might well have found [*293] that the cause of-Puleo-’s-loss was the persistence of the gas-fed fire resulting from the • large quantity of gas esc…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Callaway v. State, 112 Fla. 599 (Fla. 1933)
- Williams v. State, 100 Fla. 814 (Fla. 1930)
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Lollie V. Alverson, 95 Fla. 73 (Fla. 1928)
- Wilson v. Maddox, 97 Fla. 489 (Fla. 1929)