ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
NANCY CORSEL AND RALPH CORSEL, HER HUSBAND, APPELLEES; CITY OF TAMPA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLANT, V. NANCY CORSEL AND RALPH CORSEL, HER HUSBAND, APPELLEES
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.
This case involves appeals by two defendants, a railroad company and a city, against whom a jury returned a joint and several verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no reversible legal error and that the jury's verdict was supported by sufficient evidence from conflicting testimony.
The appellate court held that there were no reversible errors in the lower court's legal rulings and that the jury's verdict, reached after considering conflicting evidence, was supported by sufficient evidence and should not be disturbed.
“From a perusal of the record, we reach the conclusion that no reversible error appears in the rulings of the lower court on questions of law; and that the jury verdict was arrived at in this case after consideration of conflicting evidence and should not be disturbed.”
This quote establishes the court's primary reasoning for affirming the lower court's decision, highlighting the absence of legal error and the deference given to the jury's findings on conflicting evidence.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiffs filed an action against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company and the City of Tampa. A jury returned a verdict in favor of the plain…
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 Conflicting Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The above appeals were taken from an action filed by the Appellees, who were plaintiffs below, against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, a corporation, and the City of Tampa, a municipal corporation, and in which action a verdict was returned in favor of the plaintiffs against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company and the City of Tampa, jointly and severally. Separate appeal was filed by each defendant.
We have read the testimony and briefs of counsel in this case and heard oral argument at the bar of this court. From a perusal of the record, we reach the conclusion that no reversible error appears in the rulings of the lower court on questions of law; and that the jury verdict was arrived at in this case after consideration of conflicting evidence and should not be disturbed. The record holds sufficient evidence to sustain the jury’s findings. See Louisville & N. R. Co., v. Anderson, 5 Cir., 1930, 39 F. 2d 403; Beckwith v. Somerset Theatres, 1942, 139 Me. 65, 27 A. 2d 596.
Affirmed.
KANNER, C. J., and PLEUS and •ALLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Scotty Lamar POE v. IMC Phosphates MP, Inc., 885 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…dington v. Getchell, 40 R.I. 463, 101 A. 123 (1917). Although the facts of the case are not stated in the opinion, this court cited to the Somerset Theatres decision with approval almost fifty years ago in Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Corsel, 99 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957). [*402] The classification of the traveler as an “implied invitee” in cases such as Somerset Theatres is a transparent legal fiction. Dean Prosser explains that “[i]t is often said in such cases that there is an implied ‘invitatio…
Authorities Cited
- Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Anderson, 39 F.2d 403 (5th Cir. 1930)