NEW DEAL CAB COMPANY, A CORPORATION, AND CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
IRENE V. STUBBS, APPELLEE
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.
A taxicab passenger injured in a collision with a city-owned vehicle sued both the cab company and the city for negligence. The trial court directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on the negligence question, leaving only damages and defendant liability to the jury. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support a directed verdict where the plaintiff, as an innocent victim, was entitled to recover from at least one negligent defendant.
The trial court properly directed a verdict for the plaintiff on negligence because the evidence was of sufficient probative force that the plaintiff, as an innocent sufferer of harm, was entitled to recover from at least one of the defendants regardless of which one or both were found negligent. The jury's only remaining questions were the amount of damages and which defendant(s) were responsible.
“Plaintiff was entitled to a verdict at all events. He had been an innocent sufferer of harm. The only question to be determined on the trial was, whose negligence was responsible for the damage; if only one of the defendants was thus negligent the verdict should be against him or her, alone; if both were negligent, the verdict should be against them both.”
Establishes the principle that an innocent victim of an accident caused by negligence of one or more defendants is entitled to recover, with the jury determining only which defendant(s) are responsible
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff was a passenger in a taxicab that collided with an automobile owned by and driven by an employee of the City of Jacksonville at a street…
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 Unavoidable Accident cases and more on FLexlaw
ROBERTS, Justice.
The plaintiff-appellee was injured when the taxicab in which she was riding as a passenger collided at a street intersection with an automobile owned by the City of Jacksonville and being driven by its employee. She sued the New Deal Cab Company, owner of the taxicab, and the City to recover for her injuries sustained in the accident, alleging negligence on the part of each defendant. At the close of all the evidence, the trial judge, upon the motion of the plaintiff, directed the jury to enter a verdict in favor of the plaintiff “in reference to negligence” and instructed them as to the issues to be resolved by them in the following language:
“ * * * That means, gentlemen, from now on out in consideration of this case you have two questions. One question is a determination of the amount of damages due this plaintiff. The other determination is which defendant is guilty of negligence, or both. I hope you understand me, gentlemen. As a matter of law the only question in reference to the plaintiff is how much are the damages to be awarded her and the other question is a determination as between the defendants which was negligent or were both negligent causing the injuries to the plaintiff.”
The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff against both defendants, judgment was entered, new trial denied, and this appeal has been taken by the Cab Company and the City from the adverse judgment.
On this appeal, the appellants challenge the propriety of the trial judge’s action in directing a verdict in favor of plaintiff, contending that “the evidence was conflicting as to the speed of the taxicab and the City car, the force of the impact, and there was evidence produced by the Cab Company and the City tending to prove that either one or both were not guilty of the negligence charged in the Complaint.” We do not agree.
The accident happened in broad daylight. The weather was clear and the sand streets were dry. No third persons intervened to cause or contribute to the accident. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the collision was an “unavoidable accident,” and there was evidence from which the jury could have found either or both of the defendants to be negligent. In these circumstances, the plaintiff is in the same position as.the plaintiff in Rigberg v. Truskey, 146 Pa.Super. 509, 23 A. 2d 244, in which the Pennsylvania court said:
“The evidence was such that the jury might have found both defendants negligent. Plaintiff was entitled to a verdict at all events. He had been an innocent sufferer of harm. The only question to be determined on the trial was, whose negligence was responsible for the damage; if only one of the defendants was thus negligent the verdict should be against him or her, alone; if both were negligent, the verdict should be against them both.”
Where the entire evidence is of such probative force that the trial court, to give effect to the manifest weight of the evidence and the justice of the cause, should properly have granted a new trial if a verdict had been rendered for the defendant, the trial court will not be held in error for directing a verdict for the plaintiff. American Dist. Electric Protective Co. v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 139 Fla. 451, 190 So. 820, 823, and cases there cited. This is the case here.
The other questions presented by appellants have been considered, and no error has been found.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed from should be and it is hereby
Affirmed.
DREW, C. J., BUFORD, J., and KNOTT, Associate Justice, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Hilkmeyer v. Latin Am. AIR Cargo Expediters, Inc., 94 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 1957)…Loftin, Fla.1951, 51 So. 2d 724; Mullis v. City of Miama, Fla.1952, 60 So. 2d 174. See also Sec. 54.17, Florida Statutes 1955, F. S.A. The most recent expression of this Court on the general subject is found in New Deal Cab Co. v. Stubbs, Fla.1956, 90 So. 2d 614, 615. There we said: “Where the entire evidence is of such probative force that the trial court, to [*825] give effect to the manifest weight of the evidence and the justice of the cause, should properly have granted a new trial if a verdict had be…
-
Kuhn v. Telford, 115 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)…onsidered opinion Mr. Justice Drew in Hilkmeyer v. Latin American Air Cargo Expediters, Fla. 1957, 94 So. 2d 821, 824, stated: “The most recent expression of this Court on the general subject is found in New Deal Cab Co. v. Stubbs, Fla. [*38] 1956, 90 So. 2d 614, 615. There we said: "'Where the entire evidence is of such probative force that the trial court, to give effect to the manifest weight of the evidence and the justice of the cause, should properly have granted a new trial if a verdict had been ren…
-
Davis v. Sobik's Sandwich Shops, Inc., 351 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1977)…r directed verdict, the court must accept as true all of the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom which supports the opponents of the motion. Kelly v. Millers of Orlando, Inc., 294 So. 2d 704 (Fla.4th DCA 1974). New Deal Cab Co. v. Stubbs, 90 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1956), does not control since the evidence, if found persuasive by the fact finder, establishes that the accident was unavoidable. In any event, injury and lack of contributory negligence is not enough to direct a verdict for the plaintiff on…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Am. Dist. Elec. Protective Co. v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 139 Fla. 451 (Fla. 1939)