ZIOLA ROSE DE SCHULL QUENDO, APPELLANT,
v.
JUDITH HARRIET FRISCH, NORBERT FRISCH, AND ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
The trial court erred in granting a directed verdict for defendants in a negligence action; sufficient evidence existed to support a verdict for plaintiff, requiring reversal and remand for new trial.
A directed verdict for defendants was improper where evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, could support a verdict for plaintiff in a negligence action.
[1] On review of a directed verdict, evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, with all reasonable inferences drawn in that party's favor,…
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 intelligencePlaintiff, a pedestrian, was injured by an automobile allegedly negligently operated by defendant Judith Harriet Frisch.…
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 Negligent Operation Of A Motor Vehicle cases and more on FLexlaw
The judgment appealed from was entered for defendants upon the granting of their motion for directed verdict at the close of the evidence, in an action brought by the plaintiff-appellant for damages for personal injuries received by the plaintiff while a pedestrian, which were alleged to have been caused by negligent operation of an automobile by the defendant Judith Harriet Frisch.
Upon reviewing the testimony adduced in the cause in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, disregarding conflicts in the evidence and indulging in plaintiff’s favor every reasonable intendment deducible from the evidence (Rodi v. Florida Greyhound Lines, Fla.1963, 62 So.2d 355, 356), we conclude that the trial judge was in error in holding, as was essential that he do in granting defendants’ motion for directed verdict,1 that there was no evidence whatever adduced that could in law support a verdict for the plaintiff. Inasmuch as the cause is to be retried, it would serve no useful purpose for this court to restate here the evidence presented at trial.
Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rehman v. Est. OF George L. Frye, Jr., 692 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…sponte noticed the parties to respond to the question of this court’s jurisdiction to determine the appeal. After reviewing the parties’ responses, we are convinced that we lack jurisdiction to hear this non-final appeal. In In re Estate of Herlan, 239 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970), the court dismissed an appeal of a probate order granting an administrator ad litem’s motion for allowance of a commission, attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses, but reserving jurisdiction to fix the amounts at a later…
Authorities Cited
- Chambers v. Loftin, 67 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 1953)
- Mullis v. City of Miami, 60 So.2d 174 (Fla. 1952)
- Rodi v. Fla. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 62 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 1952)
- McCRORY v. Kelly, 91 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 1956)
- Cadore v. Karp, 91 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 1957)
- Esta Paikin v. Beach Cabs, Inc., 187 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Guerriero v. Adams, 190 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)