PENSACOLA ELECTRIC GARAGE, WILLIE SMITH, AND HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
EFFIE C. COLLEY AND LUBY D. COLLEY, 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 negligence case arising from a fall, the trial court granted judgment notwithstanding the jury's verdict, setting aside the jury's finding that the plaintiff was 35% negligent. The appellate court reversed, holding that under Florida's comparative negligence rule, directed verdicts are extremely rare when both parties' negligence is at issue, and the record contained sufficient evidence to support the jury's comparative negligence findings.
The court held that the trial court erred in granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Under Florida's comparative negligence rule, directed verdicts are appropriate only in extremely rare cases, and this was not such a case because sufficient evidence existed to support the jury's comparative negligence findings.
[1] A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict should be granted only in extremely rare cases, particularly when the plaintiff's own negligence is at issue.
[2] A trial court errs in granting a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict when there is evidence to support the jury's findings on issues of fact, credibility of w…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“[Situations in which directed verdicts will be appropriate will occur with even less frequency, particularly in cases where the plaintiff's own negligence is in issue. We do not here express an opinion as to whether a directed verdict should ever be granted where the negligence of both parties is at issue. We do, however, believe that such cases will be extremely rare.”
Establishes the strict standard for directed verdicts in comparative negligence cases, particularly when plaintiff's negligence is at issue
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Effie C. Colley suffered injuries from a fall. The jury found that the plaintiff's negligence contributed substantially to her injuries, app…
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 Permissible Inference cases and more on FLexlaw
DREW, E. HARRIS (Ret.), Associate Judge.
In its order granting plaintiffs’ motion for judgment, the trial court said:
“. . . Upon motion by plaintiffs for judgment in their favor for the total amount of damages found by the jury to have been sustained by them, notwithstanding the verdict of the jury which attributed to plaintiffs 35% of the negligence causing the accident, the court finds that said motion should be treated as a motion for judgment in accordance with plaintiffs’ motion for directed verdict, as in McCabe v.'Watson (3rd DCA 1969) 225 So. 2d 346, and should be granted upon the grounds stated in the motion. The court specifically finds that there was no evidence nor permissible inference to support a finding that any act on the part of plaintiff Effie C. Colley would constitute negligence. Said motion is therefore granted. . . .”
The granting of the motion and the entry of the judgment for the full amount of the damages suffered by the plaintiffs, thereby setting aside that portion of the verdict finding that plaintiff’s negligence contributed substantially to her injuries, was clearly erroneous under our recent decision in Petroleum Carrier Corporation v. Gates, 330 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), where we said with reference to the comparative negligence rule adopted by the Supreme Court in Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1973):
“. . . [Situations in which directed verdicts will be appropriate will occur with even less frequency, particularly in cases where the plaintiff’s own negligence is in issue. We do not here express an opinion as to whether a directed verdict should ever be granted where the negligence of both parties is at issue. We do, however, believe that such cases will be extremely rare.”
No useful purpose would be served by an extended narration of the evidence. Suffice it is to say that there were, as usual in these cases, conflicts, interpretations of lawful inferences from the evidence presented, the question of the credibility of the various witnesses, and, except for plaintiff’s version of the facts surrounding the accident, no evidence as to exactly what did cause the plaintiff to fall and suffer the injuries she received. These were questions for the jury. We find, contrary to the conclusion of the trial judge, that there was evidence to support those findings. This is not the “extremely rare” case referred to in Petroleum Carrier, supra, where the granting of the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and the entry of the final judgment were proper. Reversed with directions to enter a final judgment in accordance with the jury’s verdict.
McCORD, C. J., and BOYER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1973)
- McCABE v. Watson, 225 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Petroleum Carrier Corp. v. Gates, 330 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)