FREDERICK CHERUBIN, APPELLANT,
v.
GARY BEVERLY AND CENTRAL FLORIDA TRANSIT, INC., 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 transit company in negligence action, holding that sparse evidence of negligence was sufficient to require jury determination of liability.
A directed verdict against a negligence plaintiff may only be granted when there is no reasonable evidence upon which a jury could legally predicate a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and sparse evidence of negligence is sufficient to require jury determination.
[1] Sparse evidence of negligence is sufficient to preclude a directed verdict and requires submission of the case to a jury for liability determination.
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 Cherubin brought a negligence action against Central Florida Transit, Inc. and driver Gary Beverly. The trial court granted a directed verdi…
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 Directed Verdict Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
MONACO, J.
This appeal arises out of a trial in a negligence action in which the trial court granted a motion for directed verdict in favor of the defendant/appellee, Central Florida Transit, Inc. A motion for a directed verdict against the plaintiff may only be granted when there is no reasonable evidence upon which a jury could legally predicate a verdict in favor of the non-moving party. See St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Fernberg Geological Servs., 784 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 805 So. 2d 806 (Fla.2001). In considering the propriety of the trial court’s granting of a directed verdict an appellate court must determine whether the facts, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, established a prima facie case in support of the cause of action. See Blake v. Hi Lu Corp., 781 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).
In the present case the evidence at trial establishing a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the appellee was sparse, to say the least. Nevertheless, sparse or not, the evidence was sufficient to require a jury to make the liability determination.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
GRIFFIN, J., concurs.
SAWAYA, J., dissents without opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hernandez v. Paris Indus. Maint. & Bridgefield Emp'rs Ins. Co. & Summit Holdings/Claims Ctr., 39 So. 3d 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…rs’ compensation context, as “[a]n injured worker’s right to receive workers’ compensation benefits is a property right protected by procedural due process safeguards including notice and an opportunity to be heard.” Vargas v. Chamsy Transfer, Inc., 999 So. 2d 1101, 1103 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); see also Art. I, § 9, Fla. Const. (“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law....”); Peoples Bank of Indian River County v. State, Dep’t of Banking & Fin., 395 So. 2d 521, 524 (Fla…
Authorities Cited
- C.L. "Pete" Blake v. Hi-Lu Corp., 781 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- ST. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Fernberg Geological Servs., Inc., 784 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Pritam Singh v. Telling, 784 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)