J. R. LAWRENCE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
WILSON CYPRESS COMPANY, 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.
This case involves a personal injury lawsuit where the trial court directed a verdict for the defendant after multiple prior trials. The appellate court reversed, finding that the evidence presented at the final trial was sufficient to go to the jury, and a directed verdict was improper.
No, the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant. The evidence presented at the fourth trial was sufficient to allow the case to be decided by the jury.
“A majority of the court are of the opinion that under the rule governing directions of verdicts in civil eases so often laid down by this Court, there was error in directing a verdict for the defendant at the fourth trial.”
Establishes the core legal error found by the court.
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 sued for personal injuries. After three prior trials (two mistrials and one verdict set aside as excessive), the fourth trial resulted i…
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 Directed Verdict Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
Curiam.—This was an action to recover damages for personal injuries. Four trials were had in the court below. The first trial resulted in a mistrial. The second trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $37,-500.00, which was set aside by the court as excessive, and a new trial granted, which was proper under the ruling of this Court in A. C. L. R. R. Co. v. Brash, 73 Fla. 478, 74 Sou. Rep. 503, and kindred cases. The third trial resulted in another mistrial, after which a fourth trial was had. At the fourth trial, the Court directed a verdict for the defendant, and the ease is here on writ of error from the judgment for defendant entered on such directed verdict.
A majority of the court are of the opinion that under the rule governing directions of verdicts in civil eases so often laid down by this Court, there was error in directing a verdict for the defendant at the fourth trial. See Williams v. Sherry, 94 Fla. 998, 114 Sou. Rep. 849. At that trial the evidence was sufficient to take the case to the jury, and that being so, the court should not have directed a verdict for defendant, even though, the nature of the evidence might have been such that the court would have *661felt warranted in setting it aside on defendant’s motion for a new trial. See Woods v. A. C. L. R. R. Co., 100 Fla., 909, 130 Sou. Rep. 601.
The rule governing direction of verdicts is different from that governing the granting of new trials. The fact that the court would have been authorized to grant a new trial in the ease now under consideration, had a verdict for plaintiff been returned at the last trial, did not authorize the court in directing a verdict for defendant under the circumstances shown in the ease. See Carney v. Stringfellow, 73 Fla. 700, 74 Sou. Rep. 866; Alley Co. v. Ball, 102 Fla. 1037, 136 Sou. Rep. 704.
Reversed for a new trial.
Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur.
Buford, C.J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Carney v. Stringfellow, 73 Fla. 700 (Fla. 1917)
- Williams v. Sherry, 94 Fla. 998 (Fla. 1927)
- E. E. Alley Co. & Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Ball, 102 Fla. 1034 (Fla. 1931)
- Woods v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 100 Fla. 909 (Fla. 1930)
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Brash, 73 Fla. 478 (Fla. 1917)