TONYA PRITCHETT, APPELLANT,
v.
JACKSONVILLE AUCTION, INC., JULIE ROSE TROFATTER, THE MORRISON ASSURANCE CO., INC., APPELLEES
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.
Pritchett appeals a directed verdict granted in favor of the defendant driver and vehicle owner after the driver backed a pickup truck over her in a parking lot. The appellate court reversed, holding that whether the driver exercised reasonable care was a jury question and that sufficient evidence existed to support a verdict for Pritchett under comparative negligence principles.
A directed verdict was improper. When evidence is considered in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, if any evidence supports a possible verdict for that party, a directed verdict should not be entered. In negligence actions involving comparative negligence, a directed verdict should only be entered if the plaintiff could not recover under any reasonable view of the evidence.
[1] A directed verdict is improper if there is any evidence to support a possible verdict for the non-moving party.
[2] In considering a motion for a directed verdict, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.
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“When considering the propriety of a motion for directed verdict, the evidence of course must be considered in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and if there is any evidence to support a possible verdict for such party, a directed verdict is improper.”
Establishes the standard of review for directed verdicts, requiring consideration of all evidence favoring the non-moving party
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn September 6, 1980, Pritchett left a bar after consuming four to five drinks and lay down in the parking lot. A witness observed Pritchett's body wa…
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 Reasonable Care cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, Chief Judge.
Appellant Pritchett seeks review of a directed verdict entered in favor of appel-lees in a personal injury suit for damages against the driver of a vehicle, the vehicle’s owner and its insurer. Pritchett contends that the question of whether Trofatter the driver backed the vehicle over her without reasonable regard for her safety was a question for the jury to consider after reviewing all of the circumstances and infer- enees drawn from the evidence. We agree and reverse.
, On the evening of September 6, 1980, after consuming four or five drinks during a one-and-one-half to three-hour period at the Panama Bar and Lounge (bar) in Jacksonville, Pritchett walked out the front door of the bar and toward the parking lot. Elizabeth Tibbattes, who had been sitting next to Pritchett in the bar, observed that she had appeared to be intoxicated due to her slurred speech and difficulty in walking, and, becoming concerned for her safety, followed her outside. As Tibbattes stood at the front corner of the bar, she first saw Pritchett lie down in the parking lot, then stand up, take a couple of steps, and fall down less than five feet behind and a little to the right side of a white pickup truck. Pritchett next attempted unsuccessfully to stand up, but again fell back down. Meanwhile, Trofatter left the bar from the same door as had Pritchett and Tibbattes, approached the parking lot from the same corner of the bar where Tibbattes was standing, entered the pickup truck from the driver’s side, and, turning in her seat while backing the vehicle and seeing no one, backed the truck over appellant, causing her shoulder and hip injuries.
Trofatter testified that she never at any time saw Pritchett lying in the parking lot. Tibbattes, on the other hand, stated that Pritchett’s body was visible to her from the corner of the building where she was standing, and the evidence reasonably infers that Trofatter could or should have been able to see Pritchett as she left the bar in close proximity to where Tibbattes was standing.
Considered in the light most favorable to Pritchett, the record as a whole persuades us that there is a genuine issue of fact as to whether Trofatter should have noticed Pritchett and whether she exercised reasonable care in backing her truck out of the lot. When considering the propriety of a motion for directed verdict, the evidence of course must be considered in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and if there is any evidence to support a possible verdict for such party, a directed verdict is improper. Townsend v. Ward, 429 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Guy v. Kight, 431 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Moreover, a directed verdict in a negligence action should only be entered if the plaintiff could not recover under any reasonable view of the evidence. Whitten v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 430 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). This rule is particularly important in cases where, as here, the doctrine of comparative negligence applies. See Reinhart v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, 422 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).
Reversed and remanded for new trial.
BOOTH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kowkabany v. The Home Depot, Inc., 606 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…amboo Garden, Inc., 460 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Moreover, a directed verdict in a negligence action should only be entered if the plaintiff could not recover under any reasonable view of the evidence. Pritchett v. Jacksonville Auction, Inc., 449 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). In the setting in which this case arose, to establish negligence, it must be made to appear that the obligation of taking active measures to discover the peril and prevent an injury therefrom was one due from the defendant to t…
-
Scott v. TPI Rests., Inc., 798 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…Elevator Co., 680 So. 2d 462, 462 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (“A directed verdict in a negligence action should only be entered if the plaintiff could not recover under any reasonable view of the evidence.”) (citing Pritchett v. Jacksonville Auction, Inc., 449 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)); Thor Bear. When considering a motion for directed verdict, the trial court is required to evaluate the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and every reasonable inference therefrom must be indulged in the plai…
-
Tinwood N.V. v. SUN Banks, Inc., 570 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…verdict, the trial court must consider the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party and if there is any evidence to support a possible verdict for such party, a directed verdict is improper. Pritchett v. Jacksonville Auction, Inc., 449 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Howarth v. Moreau, 430 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Stated otherwise, a directed verdict is proper where the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom fail to prove a prima facie case in support of the cause(s) of action p…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Reinhart v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. & State of Fla. Dep't of Transp., 422 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Norval M. GUY v. Kight, 431 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Townsend v. Ward, 429 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Ruzicka v. State, 430 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Whitten v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 430 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)