BERTIE GUHMAN, A WIDOW, FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, AND BERTIE GUHMAN, A WIDOW, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE; JAMES A. PILKINGTON, FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, AND JAMES A. PILKINGTON, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS, V. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Appellants sought review of a directed verdict entered against them in a personal injury case arising from a crane striking a live power line. The court reversed, finding sufficient evidence of negligence to submit the case to a jury and rejecting the trial court's exclusion of relevant evidence.
The directed verdict was improper because adequate evidence of negligence existed to justify jury determination. The exclusion of the proffered evidence was error, though the court found the specific evidentiary rulings themselves not to be reversible error in light of the directed verdict reversal. Negligence and contributory negligence are ordinarily jury questions where there is no evidence sufficient to hold as a matter of law.
“in considering the propriety of a directed verdict for the defendant, the court is required to evaluate the testimony in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and that every reasonable intendment deducible from the evidence must be indulged in the plaintiff's favor”
Establishes the standard of review for directed verdicts on appeal, requiring courts to view all evidence favorably to the non-moving party.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA crane was being utilized near a live power line operated by Florida Power & Light Company, resulting in personal injuries to the appellants. The tri…
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 Directed Verdict Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
The above causes were previously consolidated for briefing and argument.
The appellants, plaintiffs below, seek review of an order directing a verdict for the appellee, defendant below, at the close of plaintiffs’ case.
*750This, is another instance where a crane was being utilized in the vicinity of a live power line, resulting in infliction of personal injuries.
It is an established rule that in considering the propriety of a directed verdict for the defendant, the court is required to evalu'ate the testimony in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and that every reasonable intendment deducible from the evidence must be indulged in the plaintiff’s -favor. Rodi v. Florida Greyhound Lines, Fla.1952, 62 So.2d 355; Brightwell v. Beem, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 320.
In reviewing the record on appeal in the instant case in light of the aforementioned rule, there is adequate evidence of negligence to justify submitting the cause to the jury. Bell v. Florida Power & Light Company, Fla.App.1958, 106 So.2d 224; Ahearn v. Florida Power & Light Company, Fla.App.1961, 129 So.2d 457. Ordinarily, issues of negligence or contributory negligence comprise questions to be answered by the jury. The record on appeal reveals no evidence sufficient to hold the appellants guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. Therefore, this cause will of necessity be one for a jury determination. Saunders v. Kaplan, Fla.App.1958, 101 So.2d 181; Ahearn v. Florida Power & Light Company, supra.
As this case is to be retried, we feel it necessary to review the other errors urged by the appellants. They contend that the trial court erred in refusing to admit into evidence the following: Testimony of the fact that a Florida Power & Light Company truck arrived on the scene immediately after the accident. Testimony of the general contractor that upon application for a building permit a copy of the building plans was filed with the City of North Miami. Testimony of the general contractor pertaining to the custom and responsibility of the contractor to advise the appellee of necessity for safety services. Testimony relating to safety measures taken by the appellee two days later when the beam was raised into place. The Florida Power & Light Company Practice Manual. The Commercial Engineering Manual. The building permit of the City of .North Miami. The pamphlet of the Florida Industrial Commission, indicating practice and procedure whereby contractors are requested to call the appellee for safety services. Further, that the court erred in permitting the amendment of the original style of Bertie Yochim, a widow, to Bertie Guhman. After due consideration to these contentions advanced by the appellants, we find them to be without merit.
As we find that the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant below, it necessarily follows that the court erred in assessing costs against the plaintiffs below. Therefore, for the reasons stated,, the judgment appealed from is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Whitman v. RED TOP Sedan Serv., Inc., 218 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…lorida Greyhound Lines, Fla. 1952, 62 So. 2d 355, 356; Hardware Mut. Cas. Co. v. Tampa Electric Co., Fla. 1952, 60 So. 2d 179, 40 A.L.R.2d 1293; Brightwell v. Beem, Fla.1956, 90 So. 2d 320, 322; Guhman v. Florida Power & Light Company, Fla.App.1962, 139 So. 2d 749, 750; Guerriero v. Adams, Fla. App.1966, 190 So. 2d 432, 433. . Kerr v. Caraway, Fla.1955, 78 So. 2d 571, 572; Mason v. Remick, Fla.App. 1950, 107 So. 2d 38, 39; 3 Fla.Jur., Automobiles § 93.…
-
Esta Paikin v. Beach Cabs, Inc., 187 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…lged in plaintiff’s favor.” In this connection see also Hardware Mutual Casualty Co. v. Tampa Electric Co., Fla., 60 So. 2d 179, 40 A.L.R.2d 1293; Brightwell v. Beem, Fla., 90 So. 2d 320, 322; Guhman v. Florida Power & Light Company, Fla.App. 1962, 139 So. 2d 749, 750. [*95] The facts of this case, viewed, in the light favorable to the party moved against in accordance with the latter rale, may be summarized as follows: The plaintiff was an employee in a dress shop in the Fon-tainebleau Hotel located on Coll…
-
Homan v. Cnty. OF Dade, 248 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…he plaintiff. Hardware Mutual Casualty Co. v. Tampa Electric Co., Fla. 1952, 60 So. 2d 179; Rodi v. Florida Greyhound Lines, Fla.1952, 62 So. 2d 355; Brightwell v. Beem, Fla.1959, 90 So. 2d 320; Guhman v. Florida Power & Light Company, Fla.App.1962, 139 So. 2d 749; Whitman v. Red Top Sedan Service, Inc., Fla.App.1969, 218 So. 2d 213. Only in the event there is no evidence from which the jury could return a verdict for the plaintiff should the trial judge remove the matter from its consideration. Chambers v. L…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brightwell v. Melville J. Beem and Glea Beem, 90 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 1956)
- Rodi v. Fla. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 62 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 1952)
- Ahearn v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 129 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Saunders v. Kaplan, 101 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Bell v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 106 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)