EDWIN P. LEMAY, APPELLANT,
v.
VINCENT GARCIA, 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.
In this intersection accident case, a jury found the appellant (Edwin P. LeMay) liable based on conflicting evidence regarding traffic light colors, vehicle speeds, and right-of-way. The appellate court affirmed the jury verdict, holding that the appellant failed to demonstrate error and that the admission of traffic ordinance evidence was proper.
The jury verdict is affirmed. The jury properly resolved the factual conflicts adversely to the appellant, and the admission of traffic ordinance evidence was proper because the case involved conflicting evidence on material facts, distinguishing it from the cited Cash v. Gates precedent.
“The jury verdict arrived in this court with a presumption of correctness.”
Establishes the standard of review for jury verdicts on appeal—they are presumed correct.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTwo automobiles collided at an intersection. The evidence was conflicting regarding: (1) the color of the traffic light at the time of the accident, (…
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 Presumption Of Correctness Of Jury Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
This case involved an intersection accident between two automobiles. The evidence was in conflict. The jury resolved these conflicts in favor of the ap-pellee, both on the original complaint against him and on his counter claim against the appellant. The jury verdict arrived in this court with a presumption of correctness. See: Tampa Transit Lines v. Rodriguez, Fla.App.1958, 100 So.2d 676; Foute v. Maule, Fla.App.1962, 143 So.2d 563. The burden to demonstrate error is upon the appellant. See: Green-Mar Builders, Inc. v. Pearlman, Fla.App.1959, 109 So.2d 601; DiVosta v. Boam Corp., Fla. App.1959, 110 So.2d 42. No error having been demonstrated, the final judgment should be affirmed.
In addition to urging error in the jury’s verdict, the appellant contends that the trial judge should not have allowed the copy of certain traffic ordinances into evidence, citing as authority the case of Cash v. Gates, Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 838. No error has *566been made to appear in this regard, in that the case at bar differs from the cited case in that the evidence in this cause was in conflict as to the color of the traffic light, as to the speed of appellant’s car, and as to which of the automobiles was the first one in the intersection. The jury having resolved these conflicts adversely to the appellant, the inference is that the appellant failed to decrease his speed sufficiently to bring his vehicle to a stop in the face of a red light, when the appellee’s car had been the first to enter the intersection. Therefore, the principles announced in the case of Cash v. Gates, supra, are inapplicable. The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
NOA v. United GAS Pipeline Co., 305 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 1974)…of whether the gas distributed to Gulf in the service line by United should have been odorized by the latter was a question of fact for the jury and that expert testimony on this subject was necessarily proper, citing LeMay v. Garcia (Fla.App.1964), 164 So. 2d 565, and Grove v. Sanford Mobile Park, Inc. (Fla.App.1968), 212 So. 2d 34, inter alia. [*185] Additional conflict is urged with the following cases: Zunck v. Gulf Oil Corp. (Fla.App.1969), 224 So. 2d 386 (does a gas company supplying gas to a private co…
-
Rossi v. Vecchio, 311 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Lemay v. Garcia, Fla.App.1964, 164 So. 2d 565; Talcott v. Holl, Fla.App.1969, 224 So. 2d 420; Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company v. McKelvey, Fla. 1973, 270 So. 2d 705, 706.…
-
Reefer Transp., Inc. v. Hoffman, 174 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…the contentions by the-appellants and find no error in the record. The verdict and judgments rendered thereon arrived in this court with a presumption of correctness. See: Fuote v. Maule, Fla.App.1962, 143 So. 2d 563; Lemay v. Garcia, Fla.App.1964, 164 So. 2d 565. It was incumbent upon the appellants to demonstrate-error. See: Green-Mar Builders, Inc. v. Pearlman, Fla.App.1959, 109 So. 2d 601; DiVosta v. Boam Corp., Fla.App.1959, 110 So. 2d 42; Lemay v. Garcia, supra. Examining the record in light of these p…
Authorities Cited
- Cash v. Harriette A. Gates and Harley D. Gates, 151 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Otto DI Vosta and Verna Di Vosta v. Boam Corp., 110 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Tampa Transit Lines, Inc. v. Delfina Rodriguez and Sam Rodriguez, 100 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Fuote v. Grayson Maule and Barbara Maule, 143 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Green-Mar Builders, Inc. v. Jules Pearlman, 109 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)