THE W. B. HARBESON LUMBER CO.
v.
A. D. COSSON
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 affirmed a jury verdict awarding damages for personal injuries against the defendant lumber company. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the trial court erred in denying its motion for a directed verdict, holding that the evidence presented genuine questions of fact for jury determination.
The trial court did not err in refusing the defendant's motion for a directed verdict. Where evidence is conflicting or admits of different reasonable inferences, or where evidence reasonably tends to prove the issues, such evidence must be submitted to the jury rather than withdrawn by directed verdict.
“a party moving for a directed verdict admits not only the facts stated in the evidence, but also every conclusion favorable to the adverse party that the jury might fairly and reasonably infer from the evidence”
Establishes the evidentiary standard for directed verdict motions requiring admission of all favorable inferences
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff recovered a verdict and judgment for personal injuries against W. B. Harbeson Lumber Co. in the trial court. The case was submitted to t…
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 Instructed Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a case where a verdict and judgment for damages for personal injuries was recovered against the defendant in the court below, plaintiff in error here. All other counts having been withdrawn by the court from the consideration of the jury, the case was submitted to the jury upon the sixth count of the declaration to which pleas of the general issue, contributory negligence and assumption of risk had been interposed by the defendant. The main contention of plaintiff in error is that the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for an instructed verdict on the remaining sixth count. The defendant made no motion for new trial after the verdict was rendered. Under the evidence in the case we cannot see that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the verdict, as requested. It appears that the issues made by the pleadings presented questions which, under the evidence, were properly submitted to the jury. It is well settled that a party moving for a directed verdict admits not only the facts stated in *496the evidence, but also every conclusion favorable to the adverse party that the jury might fairly and reasonably infer from the evidence. And where the evidence is conflicting or will admit of different reasonable inferences, or where there is evidence reasonably tending to prove the issue or issues, such evidence should be submitted to the jury, so that the jury may be given the opportunity to determine the disputed questions of fact arising under the pleadings and the evidence, which under our system of laws it is' their function to determine, subject of course to appropriate review of the court on motion for new trial on grounds recognized by law. Williams v. Sherry, 94 Fla. 998, 114 So. 849. The power of the court to grant a new trial should not be confounded with the more limited authority to direct a verdict for one party only. The governing principles are not the same. Alberson v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 68 Fla. 196, 67 So. 44.
• No reversible error being made to appear, the judgment of the court below must be and is hereby
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Buford, J., concur.
Davis, C. J., and Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mrs. Eunice E. Orr v. Avon Fla. Citrus Corp., 130 Fla. 306 (Fla. 1937)…, these should be resolved by a jury rather than the court. City Grocery Co. v. Cothron, 117 Fla. 322, 157 So. 891; Starks v. Sawyer, 56 Fla. 596, 47 So. 513; Commercial Credit Co. v. Parker, 101 Fla. 928, 132 So. 640; Harbeson Lumber Co. v. Cosson, 116 Fla. 495, 106 So. 482. The question of negligence is always a jury question to be answered from the facts and circumstances adduced at the trial. If the negligence is charged to the agent or servant of the master, the test of the master’s liability is wheth…
-
Carter v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 138 Fla. 220 (Fla. 1939)…vestment Co., 71 Fla. 469, 71 So. 540; Gunn v. City of Jacksonville, 67 Fla. 40, 64 So. 435; Wilson [*225] Otwell & Cone v. Ritch, 93 Fla. 698, 112 So. 547; Alhambra Groves v. Cody, 99 Fla. 448, 126 So. 749; W. B. Harbeson Lumber Co. v. Cosson, 116 Fla. 495, 156 So. 482; Florida Motor Lines v. Bradley, supra; King v. Weis-Patterson Lumber Co., supra; Russell v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 129 Fla. 535, 176 So. 778; Duval Laundry Co. v. Reif, 130 Fla. 276, 177 So. 726; Hastings v. Taylor, 130 Fla.…
-
Coaster Amusement Co. v. Flo Smith, 141 Fla. 845 (Fla. 1940)…should be resolved by a jury rather than the court. City Grocery Co. v. Cothron, [*853] 117 Fla. 322, 157 Sou. 891; Starks v. Sawyer, 56 Fla. 596, 47 So. 513; Commercial Credit Co. v. Parker, 101 Fla. 928, 132 So. 640; Harbeson Lumber Co. v. Cosson, 116 Fla. 495, 156 So. 482.” In City Grocery Co. v. Cothron, 117 Fla. 322, 157 Sou. 891, we said: “Circumstantial evidence is equally cogent in civil cases as in criminal cases. And where the circumstances alone unexplained would warrant a verdict for plaintiff…
Authorities Cited
- Aberson v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 68 Fla. 196 (Fla. 1914)
- Williams v. Sherry, 94 Fla. 998 (Fla. 1927)