CAROL STOVER, INFANT, BY HER NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, C. I. STOVER, JR., PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
WALLACE O. STOVALL, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a directed verdict for the defendant in a personal injury case, finding that while some evidence of negligence existed, the overwhelming weight of the evidence indicated the plaintiff's own actions caused the injury.
The court held that a directed verdict for the defendant was appropriate because, despite some evidence of negligence, the great weight of the evidence showed the defendant was operating the vehicle carefully and the plaintiff's own actions caused the accident.
“It is contended by the plaintiff in error that the judgment should be reversed because there is substantial evidence in the record to show negligence on the part of defendant in error, who was defendant in the court below in a suit brought to recover damages alleged to have been inflicted on the plaintiff by the negligent operation by the defendant of an automobile on the public highway.”
This quote outlines the plaintiff's argument on appeal, asserting the existence of sufficient evidence of negligence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, a child, sued the defendant for injuries sustained when she was hit by the defendant's automobile. The plaintiff alleged negligent oper…
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 Rules Of The Road cases and more on FLexlaw
In this ease the writ of error is to a judgment for defendant based on a directed verdict.
It is contended by the plaintiff in error that' the judgment should be reversed because there is substantial evidence‘in the record to show negligence on the part of de*285fendant in error, who was defendant in the court below in a suit brought to recover damages alleged to have been inflicted on the plaintiff by the negligent operation by the defendant of an automobile on the public highway. It is true that there is some evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant, but the great weight of the evidence is to the effect that defendant was operating the automobile in a careful manner, had the -automobile under full control and was conforming to the rules of the road when the plaintiff, a little girl, ran across the street immediately in front of defendant’s approaching automobile -and was either knocked down by the -automobile or fell and suffered a broken leg. A verdict on the evidence should not have been allowed to stand and, therefore, there was no harmful error in directing a verdict.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Whitfield and Ellis, J.J., concur.
Terrell, J., agrees to conclusion.
Brown and Davis, J.J., dissent.
(Dissenting) :—Merely because the verdict would have been set aside on motion for a new trial is no warrant to sustain -direction of a verdict. This court h-as said the principles controlling setting aside verdicts and directing verdicts are not the same. Sec. 73 Fla. 700. Directed verdict' would be error no matter what the weight of the evidence was in favor of defendant under the authorities.
Brown, J., concurs.
Davis, J.,
(Dissenting) :—Merely because the verdict would have been set aside on motion for a new trial is no warrant to sustain -direction of a verdict. This court h-as said the principles controlling setting aside verdicts and directing verdicts are not the same. Sec. 73 Fla. 700. Directed verdict' would be error no matter what the weight of the evidence was in favor of defendant under the authorities.
Brown, J., concurs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (28 total)
-
Taylor v. State, 139 Fla. 542 (Fla. 1939)…find [*552] error in this assignment. See Britt v. State, 88 Fla. 482, 102 So. 761; State v. Merritt, 86 Fla. 164, 99 So. 230; Hoodless v. Jernigan, 51 Fla. 211, 41 So. 194; Clements v. State, 51 Fla. 6, 40 So. 432; Stover v. Stovall, 103 Fla. 284, 137 So. 249. This Court having fully considered the transcript of the record, the briefs of counsel for the respective parties, and citations of authorities having been examined appearing therein and having heard oral argument at the bar of this Court and now…
-
Saunders v. Lischkoff, 137 Fla. 826 (Fla. 1939)…ngs of the trial Court and it is the duty of a party resorting to an appellate court to make the error complained of clearly to appear. See McMillan v. Warren, 59 Fla. 578, 52 So. 825; Theisen v. Whiddon, 60 Fla. 372, 53 Sou. 642; Stover v. Stovall, 103 Fla. 284, 147 So. 249. The burden of proof in the case at bar was on the plaintiff to show a causal connection between the injuries complained of and the negligence of the defendant. If the defendant was negligent in the manner in which he examined and treat…
-
Markell v. Hilpert, 140 Fla. 842 (Fla. 1939)…aring. The law is well settled that a presumption exists in the appellate court that an order made by the lower court and assigned as error is correct and the burden of showing error is on the party asserting it. See Stover v. Stovall, 103 Fla. 284, 137 So. 249. Likewise, this Court is committed to the rule that the findings of the chancellor upon the evidence will not be disturbed unless such findings are shown to be clearly erroneous. See Sandlin v. Hunter, 70 Fla. 514, 70 So. 553; Travis v. Travis, 81 F…
Previewing 3 of 28 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Carney v. Stringfellow, 73 Fla. 700 (Fla. 1917)