JAMES A. KIKIS, APPELLANT,
v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, 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.
Plaintiff Kikis injured his fingers on a sharp port hole in a Ford hubcap while attempting to catch it after removing it from his tire. The trial court granted defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the jury verdict, but the appellate court reversed, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on foreseeability of injury.
The court reversed the judgment, finding the jury verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence and reinstating the verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The injury from the sharp-edged port hole could reasonably be found to be a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's negligent design.
[1] A judgment notwithstanding the verdict is improper when there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the jury's verdict and no reversible trial error.
[2] Foreseeability of a consequence requires that the consequence may be reasonably anticipated as a likely result of an act, not merely what possibly might occur.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“A foreseeable consequence is not what possibly might occur, or always occurs, but rather is a consequence which may be reasonably anticipated as a likely result of an act.”
Establishes the legal standard for foreseeability in negligence cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKikis discovered a flat tire and used a screwdriver to loosen the hubcap carefully. After giving it a final yank, the hubcap flew into the air. Kikis …
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 Judgment Notwithstanding The Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment for the appellee, defendant below, which was entered after a motion for judgment notwithstanding a jury verdict was granted. The effect of the order was to grant the defendant’s motion for judgment in accordance with motion for directed verdict. Tolliver v. Loftin, 155 Fla. 769, 21 So. 2d 359 (1945); Sherman v. Lynch, 242 So. 2d 799 (Fla.3d DCA), cert. denied, 246 So. 2d 788 (1971). See also L.C. Morris, Inc. v. Allison, 353 So. 2d 135 (Fla.3d DCA), cert. denied, 359 So. 2d 1210 (1978).
Both the order granting the directed verdict and the judgment for the defendant are in one document and are defective because they are not based upon sufficient grounds. It is not a technical deficiency in the order and judgment which causes us to reverse, although they are technically deficient.1 Rather, it is because there was evidence in the record to support the jury verdict and no reversible trial error occurred warranting either a judgment for the defendant or a new trial.2
The evidence showed that plaintiff cut the tendons and muscles to his index middle fingers of his right hand on a hubcap defendant designed and manufactured. Plaintiff had discovered a flat tire on his car and set about to change it. He used a screwdriver to loosen the hubcap using care to prevent this decorative hubcap from falling and being damaged. He gave a “final yank” and the hubcap flew into the air. He immediately reached for and grabbed the hubcap while it was in mid-air, his fingers entered a port hole and were severely cut by the sharp edge of this hole.
These facts raise a question about whether the accident was a foreseeable consequence of defendant’s negligence in designing or manufacturing the hubcap. A foreseeable consequence is not what possibly might occur, or always occurs, but rather is a consequence which may be reasonably anticipated as a likely result of an act. See Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., Inc. v. Lippincott, 383 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
We conclude that an injury from the port hole of this particular hubcap could be found to be a likely result because of its sharp edges. With this issue of foreseeability resolved in favor of the plaintiff the evidence is sufficient to support the jury verdict. Although, along with the trial judge, we might have rendered a verdict for the defendant, it is not our function nor right to do so. The verdict having been supported by legally sufficient evidence must be reinstated and judgment on the verdict and for costs must be entered. Hernandez v. Motrico, Inc., 370 So. 2d 836 (Fla.3d DCA 1979).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DAUKSCH, C. J., and COBB and FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur. . Casset Avenue Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Bobenhausen, 363 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 1978); Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430, 435 (Fla. 1978); Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1959); Hale Manufacturing Co. v. Baudo, 371 So. 2d 1042, appeal after remand, 371 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).
. In its order, the trial court provided that “should the foregoing Final Judgment be reversed by the Appellate Court, the defendant’s Motion for New Trial ... is granted
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ford Motor Co. v. Kikis, 401 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 1981)…nd that the court had erred in refusing to give an instruction requested by Ford. On appeal, the district court reversed the trial court’s judgment, directing that the jury verdict be reinstated and judgment enter for Kikis. Kikis v. Ford Motor Co., 386 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ford asks us to review that decision on the basis of an express and direct conflict with prior appellate decisions. The first issue — the meaning of the expressly requirement — arises from the fact that the district court below…
-
Reams v. Blanche Vaughn and Herman Vaughn, 435 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…dure has also been approved under the current rule. Navarro v. City of Miami, 402 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). This court was faced with an order granting a motion for a directed verdict, and alternatively a new trial, in Kikis v. Ford Motor Co., 386 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Although reversing both orders, no reference was made to the propriety of the procedure. However, the procedure was implicitly approved by the supreme court when, in reversing this court’s disapproval of the order granting a new…
Authorities Cited (14 total)
- Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1959)
- The Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1978)
- Hernandez v. Motrico, Inc., 370 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., Inc. v. Joyanne Lippincott, 383 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Cassat Ave. Mobile Homes, Inc. v. August L. Bobenhausen, 363 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 1978)
- Tolliver v. Loftin, 155 Fla. 698 (Fla. 1945)
- Fort Pierce Growers Ass'n & Standard Accident Ins. Co. v. Storey, 155 Fla. 769 (Fla. 1945)
- Sherman v. Lynch, 242 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Hale Mfg. Co. & Emp'rs Cas. Co. v. Baudo, 370 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Hale Mfg. Co. & Emp'rs Cas. Co. v. Baudo, 371 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)