FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
MRS. HUGH TURNER, 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 an order granting a new trial after a directed verdict, holding that appellate courts should not reverse such orders unless judicial discretion was clearly abused or the law violated.
No, the trial court did not err in granting a new trial. The appellate court should not reverse an order granting a new trial unless there is a clear abuse of judicial discretion or a violation of law.
“When the question of negligence is to be determined upon a state of facts on which reasonable men may fairly arrive at different conclusions, the trial court is justified in submitting the question to the jury.”
Establishes the standard for when a case should go to the jury, supporting the trial court's decision to grant a new trial.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court initially directed a verdict in favor of the defendant. Subsequently, the trial court granted a new trial, apparently concluding that …
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 New Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
The writ of error here is taken to an order granting a new trial after a directed verdict in favor of the defendant. The trial court having taken the ease from the .jury by directing a verdict appears afterward to have concluded that under the circumstances existing he should not have done so and, therefore, granted a new trial.
We cannot say from an inspection of the testimony in the record, that the trial court was clearly in error in so ruling. When the question of negligence is to be determined upon a state of facts on which reasonable men may fairly arrive at different conclusions, the trial court is justified in submitting the question to the jury. Consumers Elec. Co. vs. Pryor, 44 Fla. 354, 32 Sou. 797; Southern Express Co. v. Williamson, 63 Sou. 433, 66 Fla. 286; Cobb vs. Twitchell, 108 Sou. 91 Fla. 539.
The appellate court will not reverse an order granting a new trial unless it clearly appears that a judicial discretion has been abused in its exercise resulting in injustice or that the law has been violated. Russ vs. Ga. Sou. & Fla. Ry. Co., 67 Fla. 224, 64 Sou. 782; Chaney vs. Roberts, 77 Fla. 324, 81 Sou. 475; Carney vs. Stringfellow, 73 Fla. 700, 74 Sou. 866; Lockhart vs. Butt-Landstreet, Inc., 91 Fla. 497, 107 Sou. 641; Suttles vs. Burbridge, 91 Fla. 273, 107 Sou. 646; Huston vs. Green, 91 Fla. 434, 108 Sou. 846.
The order appealed from should be affirmed and it is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Buford, C.J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur.
Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City of Miami v. Bopp, 117 Fla. 532 (Fla. 1934)…c., R. Co., 62 Fla. 419, 56 So. 686; Anthony Farms Co. v. Seaboard Air Line Ry., 69 Fla. 188, 67 So. 913; Miami Transit Co. v. Mowry, 103 Fla. 840, 138 So. 481; Herrin v. Avon Mfg. Co., 87 Fla. 385, 100 So. 174; Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Turner, 103 Fla. 300, 137 Sou. 255; Ruff v. Georgia, etc., Ry. Co., 67 Fla. 224, 64 So. 782; Cheyney v. Roberts, 77 Fla. 324, 81 So. 475; Carney v. Stringfellow, 73 Fla. 700, 74 So. 866; Lockhart v. Butt-Landstreet, 91 Fla. 497, 107 So. 641; Suttle v. Burbridge, 91 Fla.…
-
Klich v. Miami Land & Dev. Co., 139 Fla. 794 (Fla. 1939)…an order granting a new trial after a directed verdict for defendants, as alleged by Section 4615 (2905) C. G. L. See Powell v. Jackson Grain Co., 134 Fla. 596, 184 So. 492; L. & N. R. Co. v. Wade, 49 Fla. 179, 38 So. 49; F. E. C. R. Co. v. Turner, 103 Fla. 300, 137 So. 255. “On writ of error taken under the statute to an order granting a new trial in a civil action at law, the only-questions to be considered are those involved in the order granting a new trial.” H. N. 12, Ruff v. G. S. & F. Ry. Co., 67 F…
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- Carney v. Stringfellow, 73 Fla. 700 (Fla. 1917)
- Theola Ruff v. Georgia, 67 Fla. 224 (Fla. 1914)
- S. Express Co. v. Williamson, 66 Fla. 286 (Fla. 1913)
- Amos C. Teston and Mattie Bridges v. State, 66 Fla. 244 (Fla. 1913)
- Cobb v. Twitchell, 91 Fla. 539 (Fla. 1926)
- The Consumers Elec. Light & St. R.R. Co. v. Pryor, 44 Fla. 354 (Fla. 1902)
- Cheney v. Roberts, 77 Fla. 324 (Fla. 1919)
- Huston v. Green, 91 Fla. 434 (Fla. 1926)
- Lockhart v. Butt-Landstreet, 91 Fla. 497 (Fla. 1926)
- Suttles v. Phoebe N. Burbridge, 91 Fla. 273 (Fla. 1926)