LULA M. JONES, PETITIONER,
v.
GENERAL ACCIDENT, FIRE & LIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION, LTD., OF PERTH, SCOTLAND, RESPONDENT
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.
In this insurance dispute, the Florida Supreme Court reversed a directed verdict for the defendant insurer, holding that a jury question existed regarding whether the insured's death resulted solely from accidental bodily injury or was contributed to by disease, where the policy required the injury to be the direct and exclusive cause of death.
The trial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant. Although medical evidence indicated death was caused by tuberculosis, the evidence was sufficient to permit a jury to infer that the death actually resulted directly and exclusively from the bodily injury sustained through the accidental automobile strike, thereby presenting a question of fact for the jury.
“A case should not be taken from the jury unless the conclusion follows from the evidence as matter of law that no recovery can be lawfully had upon any view taken of facts that the evidence tends to establish.”
Establishes the standard for when a directed verdict is appropriate—only when evidence compels one conclusion as a matter of law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLula M. Jones, as beneficiary of her deceased husband Philip Jones, brought an action on an accidental death insurance policy. On May 12, 1927, Philip…
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 External, Violent And Accidental Means cases and more on FLexlaw
Lula M. Jones, as beneficiary, brought *788an action in the Civil Court of Record on an insurance policy to recover for the accidental death of her husband, Philip Jones, it being alleged that the decedent “was struck by a moving automobile and in consequence thereof directly and exclusive of all other causes sustained bodily injury from which such injury solely the death of the said Philip Jones resulted.”
The policy insured against “the effects resulting directly and exclusively of all other causes, from bodily injury sustained * solely through external, violent and accidental means.” When apparently in good health the insured was struck by an automobile, May 12, 1927, and continued in ill health till his death, August 10, 1927. The main defense was that the death was caused at least in part by disease.
The Court rendered the following:
“The parties in this cause having concluded the submission of evidence in support of the issue joined, the defendant moved the Court to instruct the jury to find a verdict for the defendant; and the Court having heard argument of counsel for the respective parties did grant said motion and announce its purpose to instruct the jury to find a verdict for the defendant, to which ruling the plaintiff did then and there except.
And the plaintiff, thereupon and before the jury retired, did move for a non-suit with bill of exceptions.
Whereupon it is considered by the Court that said motion be granted, and that plaintiff have sixty days from this date within which to present her bill of exceptions.
It is thereupon further considered by the Court that the plaintiff take nothing by her suit, and that the defendant go thereof without day, and have and recover its costs.”
On appeal to the Circuit Court the judgment of the Civil Court of Record was affirmed.
This Court granted a writ of certiorari to the affirming • judgment of the Circuit Court.
For a proper form of judgment where non-suit is al*789lowed, see Spiker v. Hester, 133 So. 872; 135 So. 502. The evidence taken in the trial court' was duly authenticated to the Circuit Court by bill of exceptions and the certified transcript brought here on certiorari likewise contains the evidence incorporated in the bill of exceptions.
At the trial the court announced “its purpose to instruct the jury to find a verdict for the defendant”; and as judgment was rendered for the defendant', it must be determined whether the cause should have been submitted to the jury on appropriate instructions from the court.
“A case should not be taken from the jury unless the conclusion follows from the evidence as matter of law that no recovery can be lawfully had upon any view taken of facts that the evidence tends to establish. ’ ’ Jacksonville Terminal Co., a corporation v. Smith, 67 Fla. 10, 64 So. 354.
See also Haile v. Mason Hotel Co., 71 Fla. 469, 71 So. 540; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Doster, 106 U. S. 30; Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Lathrop, 111 U. S. 612; National Union v. Thomas, 10 Appeal Cases, Dist. of Columbia, 277.
"While there is positive evidence that the insured died of “tuberculosis of left kidney and of bladder”, yet there is evidence from which a jury might infer that the death actually resulted “directly and exclusively of all other causes, from bodily injury sustained solely through external, violent and accidental means,” within the meaning of the insurance policy, and as alleged in the declaration.
The trial court did not proceed according to the essential requirements of the law in declining to submit the ease to the jury with proper instructions, and the appellate court should not have affirmed the judgment for the defendant.
The judgment of the Civil Court of Record, affirmed by the Circuit Court', is quashed.
It is so ordered.
Terreul and Davis, J. J., concur.
*790Buford, C.J., and Ellis, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
.dissenting:—-Under the pleadings as framed by the parties, and the evidence adduced in this case, I cannot see that there was any departure from the essential requirements of the law on the part of the trial court, nor on the part of the Circuit Court in affirming the judgment of the trial court.
Brown, J.,
.dissenting:—-Under the pleadings as framed by the parties, and the evidence adduced in this case, I cannot see that there was any departure from the essential requirements of the law on the part of the trial court, nor on the part of the Circuit Court in affirming the judgment of the trial court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jacksonville Am. Publ'g Co. v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 143 Fla. 835 (Fla. 1940)…6, 127 So. 313. Where a civil court of record directs a verdict, and a judgment on the directed verdict is affirmed by the circuit court, the Supreme Court may review the record on certiorari. Jones v. General Accident, etc., Assurance Corporation, 103 Fla. 787, 137 So. 889. Certiorari does not issue as a matter of right but rests in the sound discretion of the superior Court. First National Bank v. Gibbs, 78 Fla. 118, 82 So. 618; Gilbert v. State, 98 Fla. 599, 124 So. 1. Certiorari will not issue where it…
-
New England Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Alden Huckins, 127 Fla. 540 (Fla. 1937)…was error because of its connection with erroneous instructions affecting liability of the defendant railroad company under the statutes of the state, though the plaintiff’s decedent was also negligent. In Jones v. Gen. Acc. Fire & Life Ass. Corp., 103 Fla. 787, 137 So. 889, there was conflicting evidence which made a directed verdict for the defendant improper. Gunn v. City of Jacksonville, 67 Fla. 40, 64 So. 435. [*549] The ultimate question to be determined is whether the .action of the Civil Court of R…
-
Dodson v. Solomon, 134 Fla. 284 (Fla. 1938)…w support a verdict for the plaintiff, there can be no recovery and the court should direct a verdict for the defendant. See Smith, Richardson & Conroy v. Tampa Electric Co., 83 Fla. 79, 89 So. 352; Jones v. General Accident, Fire & Life Ins. Corp., 103 Fla. 787, 137 So. 889. In the case of Stevens v. Tampa Electric Co., 81 Fla. 512, text p. 519, 88 So. 303, this Court had before it the question of directing a verdict, as in the case at bar, when it said: “In determining whether the trial court committed…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Haile v. Mason Hotel & Inv. Co., 71 Fla. 469 (Fla. 1916)
- Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Lathrop, 111 U.S. 612 (U.S. 1884)
- Phœnix Ins. Co. v. Doster, 106 U.S. 30 (U.S. 1882)
- Charlotte Cnty. v. Clay Chadwick, 102 Fla. 163 (Fla. 1931)
- Jacksonville Terminal Co. v. Smith, 67 Fla. 10 (Fla. 1914)