EDNA WOLKOWSKY MAESA, APPELLANT,
v.
CARMEN LOPEZ, 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 pedestrian and remanded for jury trial on negligence and comparative negligence issues where driver backed into pedestrian without seeing her.
A directed verdict on liability was improper where evidence raised questions about both the driver's duty to see a pedestrian and the pedestrian's comparative negligence.
[1] A directed verdict on liability is improper when evidence raises questions regarding both a driver's duty to perceive a pedestrian and the pedestrian's comparative neglig…
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 intelligence“Because it is the traditional function of a jury to determine disputed issues of fact, the power to direct a verdict should be sparingly and cautiously exercised.”
Court explaining the standard for when directed verdicts are appropriate.
A driver backed into pedestrian Lopez without seeing her while Lopez was mailing a letter at a mailbox on the sidewalk near a parking area.…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
Because we find that issues concerning negligence of both the driver, who backed into pedestrian Lopez without seeing her, and of appellee Lopez, who was mailing a letter in a mailbox on the sidewalk near a parking area when she was struck by appellant’s car, should have been submitted to the jury, we reverse the Final Judgment and Supplemental Final Judgment entered after the trial court directed a verdict in favor of appellee on the issue of liability. Although testimony indicates that the driver failed to see thé pedestrian, inferences drawn from the evidence raise questions regarding the driver’s obligation to have been aware of the pedestrian and of the pedestrian’s comparative negligence. Bilams v. Metropolitan Transit Authority, 371 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); see Spackman v. Laumer, 237 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 239 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 1970).
Because it is the traditional function of a jury to determine disputed issues of fact, the power to direct a verdict should be sparingly and cautiously exercised. If any reasonable theory of the evidence, including any lawful inferences that may be drawn therefrom, would have justified a verdict for the plaintiff, it was the duty of the court to submit such problem to the jury for its determination. See Katz v. Bear, Fla. 1951, 52 So. 2d 903. Also see Hilkmeyer v. Latin American Air Cargo Expediters, Fla. 1957, 94 So. 2d 821.
Good v. Ozer, 100 So. 2d 204, 205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958).
Reversed and remanded for a new trial on the question of liability.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Donchey v. Flowers BY Tony, Inc., 832 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Zane v. Coastal Unilube, Inc., 774 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Marsa v. Lopez, 400 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).…
-
Easton-Babcock & Assocs., Inc. v. Fernandez, 706 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)….K. Hilkmeyer v. Latin American Air Cargo Expediters, Inc., 94 So. 2d 821, 824 (Fla.1957); Bryan v. Loftin, 51 So. 2d 724, 725 (Fla.1951); Olin’s, Inc. v. Avis Rental Car Sys. of Florida, Inc., 141 So. 2d 609, 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962); Marsa v. Lopez, 400 So. 2d 563, 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Based upon these standards, we conclude that the lower court erred when it overturned the jury’s verdict and entered judgment in Fernandez’s favor. At issue in the case below was whether Easton-Babcock was the procuring cau…
Authorities Cited
- Hilkmeyer v. Latin Am. AIR Cargo Expediters, Inc., 94 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 1957)
- Katz v. Bear, 52 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 1951)
- Good v. Blanche S. Ozer, 100 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Bilams v. Metro. Transit Auth., 371 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Spackman v. Laumer, 237 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- Laumer v. Spackman, 239 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 1970)
- Robertson v. State, 239 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 1970)