PETER COMFORTER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
CITY OF APALACHICOLA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 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.
In a negligence action arising from injuries caused by an allegedly unsafe street condition, the trial court sustained the defendant's demurrer to the evidence after jury trial. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that the demurrer was improperly sustained because the facts disclosed by the evidence presented a question properly belonging to the jury rather than a determinate legal question.
The trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the evidence. The facts disclosed by the evidence made the case a proper one for submission to a jury, as the evidence was not sufficiently clear, certain, and determinate to warrant judgment as a matter of law for the defendant.
“A demurrer to the evidence admits the truth thereof and also such conclusions as the jury may fairly and justifiably draw therefrom. Forced or violent inference from the evidence are not thereby admitted, but the testimony is to be taken most strongly against the demurrant, and such conclusions as a jury might justifiably draw therefrom the court ought to draw.”
Establishes the legal standard for demurrer to evidence and the proper treatment of evidence upon such demurrer.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePeter Comforter brought an action against the City of Apalachicola seeking damages for injuries to himself, his horse, and saddle allegedly caused by …
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 Jury Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
Shackleford, J.
— The plaintiff in error brought an action against the defendant in error, wherein he sought to recover damages for injuries occasioned to himself, his horse and his saddle by reason of the alleged negligence of the defendant in error in permitting a certain designated street to become and remain in an unsafe and dangerous condition. The declaration contains two counts, to which the defendant filed two pleas, not guilty and contributory negligence. A trial was had before a jury and at the close of the evidence the defendant interposed a demurrer to the evidence which was sustained by the trial court and' judgment rendered in favor of the defendant. This judgment is brought here for review The only point presented for determination is as to whether or not such demurrer was properly sustained.
We have several times had occasion to discuss the legal effect of a demurrer to the evidence and the office which it performs. It is sufflicent to say now, as we. held in Wilkinson v. Pensacola & A.
R. R. Co., 35 Fla. 82, 17 South. Rep. 71, “A demurrer to the evidence ad mits the truth thereof and also such conclusions as the jury may fairly and justifiably draw therefrom. Forced or violent inference from the evidence are not thereby admitted, but the testimony is to be taken most strongly against the demurrant, and such conclusions as a jury might justifiably draw therefrom the court ought to draw.” Also see Mugge v. Jackson, 50 Fla. 235, 39 South. Rep. 157, wherein we held that “the true and proper object of a demurrer to evidence is to refer to the court the law arising from an admitted fact — a certain and determinate fact. Where the evidence is conflicting and not clear, certain and determinate, it is the proyince of the jury to weigh it, and the presumptions arising therefrom.” Tested by these principles, we are of the opinion that the court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the evidence in the instant case.
The facts disclosed by the demurrer to the evidence make the case a proper one for submission to a jury. Having reached this conclusion, it is neither advisable nor proper for us to comment upon the evidence. We are likewise precluded from considering and discussing the interesting questions which are argued before us. We would refer also the Skinner Mfg. Co. v. Wright, 51 Fla. 324, 41 South. Rep. 28; Loeffler v. City of West Tampa, 55 Fla. 276, 46 South. Rep. 426; Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. v. McCormick, 59 Fla. 121, 52 South. Rep. 712; and authorities therein cited.
Judgment reversed,
Whitfield, C. J., and. Taylor, Cockrell and Hocker, J. J., concur. ... v
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sullivan v. Brown, 67 Fla. 133 (Fla. 1914)…t v. Empire Land Co., 55 Fla. 301, 45 South. Rep. 1025; Morrison v. McKinnon, 12 Fla. 552; Wilkinson v. Pensacola & A. R. Co., 35 Fla. 82, 17 South. Rep. 71; Bird v. Jefferson County, 63 Fla. 88, 58 South. Rep. 28; Comforter v. City of Apalachicola, 63 Fla. 113, 58 South. Rep. 28; 6 Enc. Pl & Pr 453; 7 Standard Encyclopedia of Procedure 4 et seq. The transcript does not show that a demurrer to the evidence was properly presented. There is no such demurrer in the record proper, and the fact that the bill o…
-
Walton Land & Timber Co. v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 72 Fla. 66 (Fla. 1916)…3; Holland v. State, 39 Fla. 178, 22 South. Rep. 298; Mugge v. Jackson, 50 Fla. 235, 39 South. Rep. 157; Skinner Mfg. Co. v. Wright, 51 Fla. 324, 41 South. Rep. 28; Myers v. Hodges, 53 Fla. 197, 44 South. Rep. 357; Comforter v. City of Apalachicola, 63 Fla. 113, 58 South. Rep. 28. [*79] The demurrant in this case did not set forth on the record all the evidence intended to be admitted thereby, but expressly admitted all that the evidence of the plaintiff proved or tended to prove. All of that evidence is b…
Authorities Cited
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. McCormick, 59 Fla. 121 (Fla. 1910)
- Wilkinson v. Pensacola & Atl. R.R. Co., 35 Fla. 82 (Fla. 1895)
- Mugge v. Jackson, 50 Fla. 235 (Fla. 1905)
- The Skinner Mfg. Co. v. Lum Wright, 51 Fla. 324 (Fla. 1906)
- Gustave Loeffler v. City of W. Tampa, 55 Fla. 276 (Fla. 1908)