MARTINIQUE HOTEL, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
YETTA TAYLOR, 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 the trial court's order granting a new trial, finding the judge acted within discretion.
The defendant appealed an order granting the plaintiff's motion for a new trial. The trial judge believed certain jury instructions misled the jury re…
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 Nuisance cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant appeals an order granting plaintiff’s motion for new trial. The trial judge set forth the ground:
“The Court is concerned with certain of the jury instructions in this cause which, in my opinion, misled the jury in their deliberations. There were two issues in this cause, negligence and/or nuisance.
“In reviewing the jury charges, the Court is now of the belief that the jury was misled on the applicable law. The Court’s proximate cause instructions on the negligence issue restricted recovery for the plaintiff to a finding by the jury that the negligence of the defendant was the sole proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, notwithstanding the fact that the jury might have found the public nuisance created by the defendant to be a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. These instructions regarding negligence restricted the plaintiff’s recovery, if any, to the negligence issue.”
A review of the record in the light of the contentions contained in appellant’s brief reveals that the trial judge acted within the wide discretion granted to a trial judge upon motion for new trial. We therefore affirm upon authority of Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 669.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Stirling v. Sapp, 229 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 1969)…s or conflicts in the testimony, 18 F.L.P., Negligence, § 37, or where the facts are such that reasonable persons may fairly arrive at different conclusions. Rofer v. Jensen, 141 So. 2d 791 (Fla.App.2d 1962); Sandford v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 139 So. 2d 916 (Fla. App.2d 1962). Where the facts are undisputed and the evidence is reasonably susceptible of but a single inference, the question of defendant’s negligence or plaintiff’s contributory negligence becomes one of law for the court. Nelson v. Zieg…
-
Isenberg v. Ortona Park Recreational Ctr., Inc., 160 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)…this would not, in and of itself, constitute a complete bar of his action on the plea of contributory negligence, and if such were the case no such cause would be permitted to go to a jury.”) ; Sandford v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Company, Fla.App., 139 So. 2d 916 (oil spot in filling station— District Court of Appeal, Third District.) ; Quinn v. I. C. Helmly Furniture Company, Fla.App., 141 So. 2d 302 (water drained on sidewalk — District Court of Appeal, Third District); Berlin v. Southgate Corp., Fla.App.,…
-
Milby v. Pace Pontiac, Inc., 176 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)…n; Hansen v. Brown, 1939, 123 N.J.L. 223, 8 A. 2d 330; Hanley v. James Butler, Inc., 1915, 167 App.Div. 329, 153 N.Y.S. 39. It was, therefore, error to dismiss the plaintiff’s amended complaint Sanford v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co., Fla.App.1962, 139 So. 2d 916. In the Hanley case, supra, the plaintiff fell on a step-down which extended 1354 inches beyond a door. The difference in floor levels was 9}4 inches. The court in reversing a directed verdict for the defendant, stated: “ * * * There was no reason…
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
- Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1959)