ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
LOLLIE V. ALVERSON, 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.
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company appealed a $20,000 judgment for personal injuries awarded to Lollie V. Alverson, contending the evidence did not support the verdict and the damages were grossly excessive. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, finding the evidence regarding the nature and extent of injuries was unconvincing and the jury verdict was not governed by the evidence.
The court held that the evidence regarding the nature and extent of personal injuries was so unconvincing and the verdict amount so grossly excessive that the jury could not have been governed by the evidence, warranting reversal of the judgment.
“the evidence should in probative force not only preponderate in favor of the verdict found, but the evidence should produce in the minds of the jury a reasonable belief of the facts essential to the verdict.”
Establishes the legal standard for sufficiency of evidence to support a jury verdict
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLollie V. Alverson brought a personal injury action against Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company. The jury awarded $20,000 in damages for alleged pers…
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 Probative Force cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
The writ of error was taken to a judgment awarding $20,000.00 damages for alleged personal injuries.
In all eases “the evidence should in probative force not only preponderate in favor of the verdict found, but the evidence should produce in the minds of the jury a reasonable belief of the facts essential to the verdict. ’ ’ Escambia County Light and Power Co. v. Sutherland, 61 Fla. 167, text 194, 55 So. Rep. 83; Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Royal Palm Soap Co., 80 Fla. 800, 86 So. Rep. 835. And a trial court should not sustain a verdict when it is not in accord with the manifest weight of the evidence or with the justice of the ease. Shultz v. Pacific Ins. Co., 14 Fla. 73, text 94; Miller v. White, 23 Fla. 301, 2 So. Rep. 614; Meinhard v. Mode, 25 Fla. 181, 5 So. 672; Tampa Water Works Co. v. Mugge, 60 Fla. 263, 53 So. 943.
It is peculiarly the province of the jury to pass upon the credibility of conflicting testimony and to determine the probative force of competent testimony; but the legal effect of the evidence is a matter of law and the trial court should grant a new trial when there is difficulty in reconciling the verdict with the manifest weight of the evidence and of the justice of the case. Tampa Electric Co. v. Barber, 81 Fla. 405, text 406-7, 88 So. 302.
The evidence as to the nature and extent of the personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff below as alleged is so unconvincing and the amount of the verdict is so grossly excessive as to warrant a conclusion that the jury were not governed by the evidence. In such a case the judgment will be reversed. See Railroad Company v. Brash, 73 Fla. 478, 503; Fla. Railroad Co. v. Gensler, 14 Fla. 122; Pensacola Sanitarium v. Wilkins, 64 Fla. 407, 60 So. 128; Jacksonville Electric Co. v. Dillon, 67 Fla. 114, 64 So. 669; Southern Utilities Co. v. Davis, 83 Fla. 366, 92 So. 683.
Reversed.
Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Brown, J. J., concur. ,
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jacksonville Traction Co. v. Greene, 113 Fla. 316 (Fla. 1933)…eto, so strong and positive that it may be said that- the verdict of the jury approving the single witness is clearly, on the whole record, against the manifest weight of the evidence considered as an entirety. A. C. L. R. R. [*318] Co. v. Alverson, 95 Fla. 73, 116 Sou. Rep. 30; Williams v. State, 100 Fla. 814, 129 Sou. Rep. 456; Wilson v. Maddox, 97 Fla. 489, 121 Sou. Rep. 805. For a detailed statement of the limitations which are recognized on the application of the foregoing rule see the opinion of thi…
-
Smith v. Jackson Cnty., 129 Fla. 787 (Fla. 1937)…al granted. Shultz v. Pacific Ins. Co., 14 Fla. 78, 94; Miller v. White, 28 Fla. 301, 2 Sou. 614; Meinhardt Bros. & Co. v. Mode, 25 Fla. 181, 5 So. 672; Tampa Water Works Co. v. Mugge, 60 Fla. 263, 53 So. 943; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Alverson, 95 Fla. 73, 116 So. 30; State v. Aetna Cas., etc., Co., 84 Fla. 123, 92 So. 871, 24 A. L. R. 1262; Stevens v. Tampa Elec. Co., 81 Fla. 512, 88 So. 303; Harbeson Lbr. Co. v. Anderson, 102 Fla. 731, 136 So. 557; Anthony Farms Co. v. Seaboard Air Line Ry, 69 Fla.…
-
Crawford v. Hinson, 108 Fla. 630 (Fla. 1933)…e preponderated in favor of the plaintiff, and therefore the motion of the plaintiff to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial should have been granted. Powell v. English, 97 Fla. 861, 122 So. 217. Atlantic Coast Line Railway Co. v. Alverson, 95 Fla. 73, 116 So. 30. B. L. E. Realty Co. v. Parker, 135 So. 8, 20 R. C. L. 273. The trial court erred in denying the motion for a new trial. It therefore follows that the case should be reversed and a new trial awarded. Reversed. Davis, C. J., and Whitf…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (12 total)
- Schultz v. The Pac. Ins. Co., 14 Fla. 73 (Fla. 1872)
- The Escambia Cnty. Elec. Light & Power Co. v. Sutherland, 61 Fla. 167 (Fla. 1911)
- Tampa Water Works Co. v. Mugge, 60 Fla. 263 (Fla. 1910)
- Miller v. Fountain J. White, 23 Fla. 301 (Fla. 1887)
- Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Royal Palm Soap Co., 80 Fla. 800 (Fla. 1920)
- S. Utils. Co. v. Davis, 83 Fla. 366 (Fla. 1922)
- Meinhardt Bros. & Co. v. Solomon Mode, 25 Fla. 181 (Fla. 1889)
- Tampa Elec. Co. v. Elma Barber, 81 Fla. 405 (Fla. 1921)
- The Fla. R.R. Co. v. Gensler & Silberstein, 14 Fla. 122 (Fla. 1872)
- Jacksonville Elec. Co. v. Dillon, 67 Fla. 114 (Fla. 1914)