MARY B. NEALE
v.
D. C. REED
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.
A widow brought a wrongful death action against a defendant for negligently operating an automobile that struck and killed her husband on a public highway. The trial court entered judgment for the defendant after a jury verdict, and the widow appeals on multiple grounds, primarily challenging the sufficiency of evidence.
The court affirmed the judgment, finding that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the verdict and that the trial court properly denied the motion for new trial.
“There is substantial evidence found in the record to support the verdict and judgment.”
The court's holding that the evidence was sufficient to uphold the jury's verdict for the defendant.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff's husband was struck and killed by defendant's automobile on a public highway. The defendant allegedly drove negligently. The case went 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 Impeachment Of Witness cases and more on FLexlaw
The writ of error here brings for review judgment in favor of defendant in a suit instituted by a widow for damages occasioned by the wrongful death of her husband, it being alleged in effect that defendant so negligently drove and operated an automobile on the public highway as to run the same on and against plaintiff’s husband and thereby effect his death.
The assignments of error are as follows:
“1. That said court erred in denying plaintiff’s motion for new trial, in that certain order dated the 7th day of November, 1933.
“2. That the jury’s verdict and said court’s judgment is contrary to law and’ the weight of the evidence.
“3. That the jury relied upon and considered matters and things extraneous from the evidence legally before it.
“4. That the court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the law of proof and effect of negligence shown by circumstantial evidence.
“5. That the court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the law and effect of evidence tending to impeach witnesses.
“6. That the court erred in its instructions to the jury on the laws of contributory negligence.
“7. That the court erred in its instructions to the jury on the law of pedestrians using! the highways and the degree of care imposed by law on persons using the highways in motor vehicles to prevent injury to pedestrians and others using same.”
*639The third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh assignments of error are too general to be of any force or effect and point out no specific errors alleged to have occurred. The first assignment of error challenges the action of the trial court in denying motion for new trial.
The second assignment of error challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.
The motion for a new trial was on following grounds:
“1. That the jury’s verdict is contrary to law and the weight of the evidence.
. “2. That -the jury relied upon and considered matters and things extraneous from the evidence legally before it.
“3. That the court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the law of proof of negligence by circumstantial evidence.
“4. That the court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the law of impeachment of witnesses.”
The second, third and fourth grounds of the motion are too general in terms to be of any force and effect. They serve to point out' to the trial court no specific errors committed, fail to show wherein the court gave erroneous instructions or refused to give proper instructions when requested by plaintiff and so the. only ground of the motion for new trial which was so stated as to require consideration by the court was the first ground which challenged the sufficiency of the evidence. So it is that the only question presented for our determination upon this record is whether or not there was substantial evidence to support the verdict after the same had been held sufficient on consideration of motion for new trial by the trial court. 1
There is substantial evidence found in the record to support the verdict and judgment. Therefore, same should be affirmed.
*640It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield and Brown, J. J., concur.