JO MARIE GROVES, AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF LEONARD MICHAEL GROVES, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
GARY FRANK LEO, POWELL MOTOR COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND FEDERAL 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 jury's finding of no negligence against the defendant is supported by competent, substantial evidence and will not be disturbed.
Plaintiff's decedent died in an accident after running a stop sign. Conflicting evidence existed regarding the stop sign's placement, but it was admit…
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 Jury Question cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals an adverse jury verdict in a wrongful death action. The jury determined that the defendant was guilty of no negligence which was a proximate cause of the death. The accident in question occurred at an intersection at which a stop sign was posted. The precise legal basis for the existence and positioning of the stop sign was the subject of conflicting evidence at trial. It is uncontested that the plaintiff’s decedent ran the stop sign and it is admitted on appeal that this act constituted some negligence. Appellant argues that the finding of no negligence against appel-lee was against the manifest weight of the evidence and that a new trial is necessary.1
We have reviewed the arguments and the evidence and find that the verdict is supported by competent, substantial evidence. This case is within the general rule that negligence and proximate cause are jury questions. Helman v. Seaboard Coastline Railroad Co., 349 So. 2d 1187 (Fla.1977). This is particularly true where the evidence is conflicting and subject to various interpretations.
Appellant raises numerous other points, all of which have been reviewed and found to be without merit. The judgment below is therefore affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
CROSS and BERANEK, JJ., and SMITH, CHARLES E., Associate Judge, concur. . We note that this was the second trial to occur in this matter, a new trial having been previously granted. Groves v. Leo, 332 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bryant v. Fiadini, 405 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…he jury could consider a violation of the code if evidence of negligence was established.5 It was within the province of the jury to find that the negligence of the adults was the sole proximate cause of the injuries of the children. Groves v. Leo, 367 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, 349 So. 2d 1187 (Fla.1977); Loftin v. Wilson, 67 So. 2d 185 (Fla.1953). It was also within the province of the jury to find that the defendants were not guilty of any negligence. G…
-
Buchanan v. Allstate Ins. Co., 629 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…n of Mrs. Buchanan’s neck condition. As a general rule, negligence and proximate cause are jury questions, and this is particularly true when the evidence is conflicting. Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R., 349 So. 2d 1187 (Fla.1977); Groves v. Leo, 367 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). As there is competent, substantial evidence to support the verdict, it is affirmed. Helman. As for the cross-appeal, the following background information is necessary. The automobile accident occurred on July 17, 1986; the Buch…
-
J. R. Ledbetter, M.D. v. Todd, 418 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…intended to provide compensation. Number of years 1 (One) SO SAY WE ALL, this 12th day of December, 1980. . The Special Verdict form used in this case is set forth in Appendix. . Daniels v. Weiss, 385 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Groves v. Leo, 367 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); O'Conor v. Dep’t of Transp., 364 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Hunt v. Palm Springs Gen. Hosp., 352 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); McCabe v. Walt Disney World Co., 350 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). . In Carter v. Sparkman, 33…
Authorities Cited
- Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. & William A. Cagle, 349 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 1977)
- Groves v. LEO, 332 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)