BRYAN
v.
LOFTIN
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 reversed a directed verdict for defendants in a personal injury case arising from a railroad crossing collision, holding that the trial court improperly withdrew the case from the jury when conflicting evidence existed.
The directed verdict was improper. When evidence is conflicting, permits different reasonable inferences, or tends to prove the issues, it must be submitted to the jury as a question of fact. A directed verdict for the defendant should only be granted when it is clear that no evidence has been adduced that could support a verdict for the plaintiff.
[1] A directed verdict should not be granted for the defendant unless it is clear that no evidence whatever has been adduced that could in law support a verdict for the plain…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“The power granted to a trial court to direct a verdict during the trial of a cause where sufficient evidence has not been adduced to make out a case should be cautiously exercised so as not to infringe upon the organic right of trial by jury.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that directed verdicts must be used carefully to preserve jury trial rights
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Bryan was injured in a railroad crossing collision and brought suit against defendants Loftin and others for damages. The trial court direct…
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 Inferences From Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon a verdict directed in defendants' favor in a suit wherein plaintiff sought to recover for her injuries sustained in a railroad crossing collision. This court has many times held that "The power granted to a trial court to direct a verdict during the trial of a cause where sufficient evidence has not been adduced to make out a case should be cautiously exercised so as not to infringe upon the organic right of trial by jury. If the evidence is conflicting or will permit of different reasonable inferences, or if there is evidence tending to prove the issues, it should be submitted to a jury as a question of fact to be determined by it, and not taken from the jury and passed upon by the Court as a question of law." See Saunders v. Lischkoff, 137 Fla. 826, 188 So. 815, and cases therein cited; Moore v. Dietrich, 133 Fla. 809, 183 So. 2; Johnson v. Louisville & N.R. Co., 59 Fla. 305, 52 So. 195, 196. In the case last cited, it was stated that "The court should not direct a verdict for the defendant, unless it is clear that there is no evidence whatever adduced that could in law support a verdict for plaintiff."
We are persuaded that the testimony adduced by the plaintiff, when considered in the light of the foregoing rules and the provisions of Sections 768.05 and 768.06, Florida Statutes 1949, F.S.A., did not warrant the withdrawal of the case from the jury.
The judgment is, accordingly, reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
SEBRING, C.J., and CHAPMAN, ADAMS and ROBERTS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Teare v. Local Union NO. 295, 98 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 1957)…ntiff. In order to support a verdict directed by the trial judge at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence it should be clear that there is [*82] no evidence whatsoever that could in law support a verdict for the plaintiff. Bryan v. Loftin, Fla.1951, 51 So. 2d 724; Hardware Mut. Cas. Co. v. Tampa Electric Co., Fla.1952, 60 So. 2d 179, 40 A.L.R.2d 1293. It is unnecessary to cite exten-, sive authorities to delineate the distinction between words which are actionable per se as contrasted to those actionable pe…
-
Chambers v. Loftin, 67 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 1953)…defendant unless “it is clear that there is no evidence whatever adduced that could in law support a verdict for plaintiff.” Section 54.17, Florida Statutes 1951, F.S.A. Johnson v. L. & N. R. Co., 59 Fla. 305, 52 So. 195, 196; Bryan v. Loftin, Fla., 51 So. 2d 724; Mullis v. City of Miami, Fla., 60 So. 2d 174. In arriving at a determination whether to grant or deny a directed verdict for the defendant the trial court should interpret the evidence in favor of the plaintiff, giving him the benefit of all intend…
-
Mullis v. City of Miami, 60 So.2d 174 (Fla. 1952)…not direct a verdict for the defendant, unless it is clear that there is no evidence whatever adduced that could in law support a verdict for plaintiff." Johnson v. Louisville & N.R. Co., 59 Fla. 305, 52 So. 195, 196, cited in Bryan v. Loftin, Fla., 51 So. 2d 724, 725. It was, then, error for the trial judge to do so in the instant case. The plaintiffs also contend here that the trial judge erred in excluding certain evidence proffered by them with respect to services rendered by the wife to the husband pri…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bessie Johnson by her next friend David Johnson v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 59 Fla. 305 (Fla. 1910)
- Saunders v. Lischkoff, 137 Fla. 826 (Fla. 1939)
- Ulmer Moore v. Diethrich, 133 Fla. 809 (Fla. 1938)
- Bryan v. Loftin, 51 So.2d 724 (Fla. 1951)