CITY OF PLANT CITY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
FLORA MUSE, BY HER HUSBAND, J. H. MUSE, AND J. H. MUSE, DEFENDANTS 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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a $2,000 judgment against the City of Plant City for personal injuries to Flora Muse, finding the evidence insufficient to establish proximate cause for her ailments and the damages excessive.
No, the evidence did not clearly show that the plaintiff's serious ailments were the proximate result of the fall, and the damages awarded were excessive, indicating the finding was partly based on insufficient evidence.
“The evidence does not clearly show that the serious ailments testified to were the proximate result of the fall alleged, to have been caused by the defendant's negligence, and the amount of the damages awarded is excessive and indicates that the finding was in part at least predicated upon such insufficient evidence.”
Establishes the court's reasoning for reversing the judgment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFlora Muse obtained a judgment of $2,000 against the City of Plant City for personal injuries allegedly caused by falling into a hole near a sidewalk.…
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 Excessive Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
A judgment for $2,000.00 was obtained against the city as damages for personal injuries to-Flora Muse alleged to have been caused by falling in a hole in or near a sidewalk in the defendant city. The city took writ of error. In important particulars this case is unlike that of City of Key West v. Baldwin, 69 Fla. 136, 67 South. Rep. 808, and the decision in that case is not controlling here.
The evidence does not clearly show that the serious ailments testified to were the proximate result of the fall alleged, to have been caused by the defendant’s negligence, and the amount of the damages awarded is excessive and indicates that the finding was in part at least predicated upon such insufficient evidence.
The liability of the city was earnestly contested, and it is not clearly established.
The judgment is reversed and a new trial granted.
All concur, except -Cockrell, J., absent by reason of sickness.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wright Carlton v. Vaux, 102 Fla. 708 (Fla. 1931)…coverable from the defendant, that the court cannot with satisfactory certainty determine what would be a proper remittitur, the judgment must be reversed for a new trial. Southern Utilities Co. v. Davis, 83 Fla. 366, 92 So. 683; Plant City v. Muse, 71 Fla. 126; 70 So. 1005; A. C. L. R. Co. v. Brash, 73 Fla. 478, 74 So. 503. [*709] Reversed. Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell, J., concur. Buford, C.J., and Brown, J., concur in the opinion and judgment. Ellis, J., dissents.…
Authorities Cited
- The City of Key W. v. Baldwin, 69 Fla. 136 (Fla. 1915)