PAUL LUNSFORD, APPELLANT,
v.
VIRGINIA LAITE, 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.
The appellate court affirmed a jury's verdict for the defendant in a car accident case, finding that the evidence supported the jury's conclusion that the defendant was not negligent and the plaintiff's damages were caused by the driver of the car the plaintiff was riding in.
No, the evidence presented was legally sufficient to support the jury's verdict that the defendant was not negligent.
“From a careful review of the evidence it appears that the jury may well have concluded that defendant was free from negligence in proceeding through the intersection which she lawfully entered while the traffic light was in her favor, and that the sole proximate cause of plaintiff's damages was the acknowledged negligence of the driver of the automobile in which plaintiff was riding.”
This quote explains the court's understanding of the jury's potential findings regarding the defendant's negligence and the cause of the accident.
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 car that collided with the defendant's car at an intersection. The plaintiff sued the defendant for damages, allegi…
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 Manifest Weight Of The Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff has appealed from an adverse verdict and judgment rendered in a suit for damages arising out of an intersectional collision between an automobile in which plaintiff was riding as a passenger, and one being driven by defendant. The principal error assigned is the trial court’s refusal to grant plaintiff’s motion for new trial on the ground that the jury’s verdict on the issue of liability is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. If the court’s ruling on this ground of the motion is free from error, the remaining assignments with respect to damages become immaterial.
From a careful review of the evidence it appears that the jury may well have concluded that defendant was free from negligence in proceeding through the intersection which she lawfully entered while the traffic light was in her favor, and that the sole proximate cause of plaintiff’s damages was the acknowledged negligence of the driver of the automobile in which plaintiff was riding.1
We are of the view that the issue of liability was one to be resolved only by the jury, and that the evidence revealed by the record before us, together with the reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom, is legally sufficient to support the verdict under assault.2
Affirmed.
WIGGINTON, Chief Judge, and STUR-GIS and CARROLL, DONALD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lunsford v. Laite, 120 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 1960)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 116 So. 2d 797.…
Authorities Cited
- Hiram Tackett, Jr. v. Hartack, 98 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)
- Lyons v. Grappo, 112 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)