ALORISE LEONARD BEASON, APPELLANT,
v.
DANIEL EVANS, JR., 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 court held that the defendant's explanation for the accident was legally sufficient to rebut the presumption of negligence and justify an inference of contributory negligence, making the jury's verdict proper.
Plaintiff sued for personal injuries from a rear-end collision. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant, but the trial court granted a new trial…
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 Jury Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff brought action seeking damages for personal injuries sustained in a “rear end” motor vehicle collision. The case was tried by a jury which returned a not guilty verdict in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff then successfully moved for a new trial and in the order granting same the trial court said:
“1. * * * The evidence indicated a definite rear end collision which raised a presumption of negligence; which presumption the Defendant failed to rebut.
“2. * * * The evidence introduced was insufficient to prove contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff.”
The evidence adduced at the trial concerning the circumstances leading up to the accident is conflicting. Plaintiff testified in essence that after having signalled he had brought his car to a stop and was awaiting an opportunity to make a left turn when defendant struck him in the rear. It was defendant’s testimony that after following behind plaintiff for some distance he attempted to pass whereupon without signalling plaintiff, who was also moving, suddenly cut to the left thereby causing the accident.
We find that defendant’s explanation as to how this accident happened is legally sufficient to both rebut the presumption of negligence and justify an inference of contributory negligence. Therefore the case was, in the first instance, properly submitted for jury determination.1
Unless the evidence as a whole points to only one possible conclusion, the trial judge is not warranted in setting aside a jury determination based on conflicting evidence.2
Accordingly, the order appealed is reversed with directions to reinstate the jury verdict
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mansell v. Eidge, 179 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…, Fla.App.1964, 159 So. 2d 670; Dupree v. Pitts, Fla.App.1964, 159 So. 2d 904; General Hospital of Greater Miami, Inc. v. Gager, Fla.App.1964, 160 So. 2d 749; Park v. Belford Trucking Co., Fla.App.1964, 165 So. 2d 819; Beason v. Evans, Fla.App.1965, 173 So. 2d 516. The action of the trial judge in the instant case amounts to abuse of judicial discretion, viewed in light of the evidence before the jury upon which its verdict was reached. It is incumbent upon an appellate court to reestablish the jury’s verdic…
-
Danek v. Hoffman, 189 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…ed. There is authority for the proposition that the matter of credibility of witnesses is peculiarly for the jury, and a trial judge should not set a verdict aside merely because he chose to believe certain witnesses. Beason v. Evans, Fla.App.1965, 173 So. 2d 516; Bell v. Tarvin, Fla.App.1964, 163 So. 2d 300; and Bailey v. Sympson, Fla.App.1963, 148 So. 2d 729. This appears to us as merely part of the larger problem, which is the extent of the inroad that a trial judge’s discretion will be allowed to make up…
-
Sawyer v. Dawson, 215 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…harm to the appellees. We conclude that the trial judge had a proper basis for granting the appellees’ motion for a directed verdict upon the issue of liability. Affirmed. . Gulle v. Boggs, Fla.1965, 174 So. 2d 26; Beason v. Evans, Fla.App.1965, 173 So. 2d 516; Shaw v. York, Fla.App.1966, 187 So. 2d 397; Keyser v. Brunette, Fla.App. 1966, 188 So. 2d 840. . Kimenker v. Greater Miami Car Rental, Inc., Fla.App.1959, 115 So. 2d 191; Becker v. Adkins, Fla.App.1966, 184 So. 2d 682; Stephens v. Dichtenmueller,…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Aliene Alessi and John Alessi v. Farkas, 118 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Ralph Johnson et ux. v. Edwin L, 168 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 1964)
- Bernstein v. Crossman, 172 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)