JOHN KING, AN INSANE PERSON, BY HIS GUARDIAN, ADDIE WILSON KING,
v.
WEIS-PATTERSON LUMBER COMPANY
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 Florida Supreme Court reversed a directed verdict for a sawmill company in a negligence action brought by an insane person's guardian, holding that sufficient circumstantial evidence of the defendant's negligence in accumulating inflammable trash that caused a fire spreading to plaintiff's property warranted jury consideration rather than judgment as a matter of law.
There was sufficient competent evidence to warrant and require submission of the issues to the jury, and it was error to direct a verdict for the defendant. The judgment was reversed and a new trial ordered.
“In directing a verdict the Court is governed by practically the same rules that are applicable to demurrers to the evidence. The party moving for a directed verdict not only admits the facts in evidence but every conclusion favorable to the adverse party which a jury might reasonably infer.”
Establishes the legal standard for directed verdicts—the movant must accept all evidence and reasonable inferences favoring the opposing party.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant, Weis-Patterson Lumber Company, operated a sawmill that accumulated large quantities of inflammable trash in its mill yard, sheds, and u…
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 Preponderance Of The Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
This suit was dispensed of in the Circuit Court *273on a directed verdict for the defendant. Upon writ of error to the resultant judgment, the contention here is that there was evidence adduced at the trial sufficient to take the case to the jury. The cause of action sued on in a six count declaration was generally alleged negligence on the part of the defendant sawmill company in permitting to accumulate on its mill yard and in its sheds, and under and near its tramway, particularly in a shed known as its number one shed, a large quantity of inflammable trash which, as a proximate result of defendant’s negligence became ignited and caused the fire to spread from defendant’s property to the plaintiff’s property, thereby damaging and destroying the same.
In directing a verdict the Court is governed by practically the same rules that are applicable to demurrers to the evidence. The party moving for a directed verdict not only admits the facts in evidence but every conclusion favorable to the adverse party which a jury might .reasonably infer. Anderson v. Southern Cotton Oil Co., 73 Fla. 432, 74 Sou. Rep. 975, LRA 1917E 715; Wolfe v. City of Miami, 103 Fla. 774, 134 Sou. Rep. 539, 137 Sou. Rep. 892; Alley v. Ball, 102 Fla. 1034, 136 Sou. Rep. 704; Gunn v. Jacksonville, 67 Fla. 40, 64 Sou. Rep. 435, and similar cases; Sec. 4363 C. G. L. 2696 R. G. S.
Where circumstantial evidence is relied on in a civil case to prove an essential fact or circumstance essential to recovery, the rule is that the particular inference of the existence of the fact relied on as arising from the circumstances established by the evidence adduced, shall outweigh all contrary inferences to such extent as to amount to a preponderance of all of the reasonable inferences that might be drawn from the same circumstances. This is a less rigid rule than applies in a criminal case, where the inference *274drawn must not only be consistent with the fact sought to be proved, but wholly inconsistent with any other reasonable inference to the contrary. City of Pensacola v. Herron, 112 Fla. 742, 150 Sou. Rep. 877; Sovereign Camp W. O. W. v. Hodges, 72 Fla. 467, 73 Sou. Rep. 347.
Tested by the foregoing rules as to direction of verdicts in civil cases and by the rule applicable to circumstantial evidence when relied on to establish negligence in a case like that now before us involving the alleged negligent causation and spread of the fire from defendant’s premises to that of the plaintiff, it appears that there was sufficient competent evidence adduced at the trial below to warrant and require submission of the issues involved to the jury. Therefore it was error to direct a verdict for the defendant and the judgment is accordingly reversed therefor with direction to award a new trial.
Reversed for a new trial.
Whitfield, C. J., and Brown, J., concur.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (27 total)
-
Voelker v. Combined Ins. Co. of Am., 73 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 1954)…proof any reasonable inference deducible therefrom which would authorize recovery must outweigh each and every contrary reasonable inference if the plaintiff is to prevail. We quote,from our opinion in the case of King v. Weis-Patterson Lumber Co., 124 Fla. 272, 168 So. 858, 859: “Where circumstantial evidence is relied on in a civil case to prove an essential fact or circumstance essential to recovery, the rule is that the particular inference of the existence of the fact relied on as arising from the cir…
-
Byers v. Gunn, 81 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 1955)…oof any-reasonable inference deducible there— from which would authorize recovery-must outweigh each and every contrary reasonable inference if the plain'tiff is to prevail. We quote from our opinion in the case of King v. Weis-Patterson Lumber Co., 124 Fla. 272, 168 So. 858, 859: ‘Where circumstantial evidence is relied on in a civil case-to prove an essential fact or circumstance essential to recovery, the rule is-that the particular inference of the-existence of the fact relied- on as-, arising from the…
-
Stigletts v. McDonald, 135 Fla. 385 (Fla. 1938)…391] rule than applies in a criminal case, where the inference drawn must not only be consistent with the fact sought to be proved, but wholly inconsistent with any other reasonable inference to the contrary.” Ring v. Weiss-Patterson Lumber Company, 124 Fla. 272, 168 So. 858. Under the facts established by the testimony in this case, it appears that Tindell stayed in the Furlough home alone while Mrs. Furlough was in the hospital in Dothan, Alabama. It also appears that Tindell had access to Mrs. Furlough’…
Previewing 3 of 27 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kraemer v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 572 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 1990)
- Gunn v. City of Jacksonville, 67 Fla. 40 (Fla. 1914)
- Anderson v. S. Cotton Oil Co., 73 Fla. 432 (Fla. 1917)
- Wolfe v. City of Miami, 103 Fla. 774 (Fla. 1931)
- E. E. Alley Co. & Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Ball, 102 Fla. 1034 (Fla. 1931)
- Sovereign Camp of the Woodmen of the World v. Hodges, 72 Fla. 467 (Fla. 1916)
- City of Pensacola v. Herron, 112 Fla. 742 (Fla. 1933)