SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, AND SIDNEY GRANT ROBINSON, APPELLANTS,
v.
JAMES ALLAN LINDER, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, WILLIE MAE LINDER AND WILLIE MAE LINDER, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLEES
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.
This case involves an appeal by a telephone company and its employee after a jury awarded damages to a minor injured in a collision with the company's truck. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding that the evidence, when viewed favorably to the plaintiff, was sufficient to allow the jury to consider negligence and contributory negligence.
No, the trial court did not err in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendants. The evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, was sufficient to present issues of negligence and contributory negligence to the jury.
“Where the action of a trial court in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendant is assigned as error, the evidence on appeal must be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.”
This quote establishes the standard of review for the appellate court when considering a denial of a directed verdict.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA minor, James Allan Linder, was injured when a truck owned by Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company and driven by its employee, Sidney Grant …
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 Contributory Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendants below, Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company and an employee, Sidney Grant Robinson, appeal a final judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. The action was brought on behalf of James Allan Linder, a minor, by his mother, for personal injuries alleged to have been caused when the defendant company’s truck was involved in a collision with the minor plaintiff’s bicycle.
The sole question on appeal is the defendants’ contention that the trial court erred in not directing a verdict in their favor, inasmuch as there was no evidence of negligence on their part and the minor plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.
Where the action of a trial court in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendant is assigned as error, the evidence on appeal must be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Ansin v. Thurston, Fla.App.1957, 98 So.2d 87. The evidence of negligence on the part of the defendants was slight, but when viewed on appeal in a light most favorable to the plaintiffs, we cannot say that it was non-existent.
The issues of negligence and contributory negligence were properly submitted to the jury which resolved them against the defendants, and we do not find the trial court committed reversible error in denying the motions for a directed verdict.
Accordingly, the judgment is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
PIX Shoes OF Miami, Inc. v. Howarth, 201 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…llowing an examination of the record, we find no merit in this contention. See: Theriault v. Rogers, Fla.App.1964, 166 So. 2d 820; Lloyd v. McKenna, Fla.App.1965, 179 So. 2d 583; Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Linder, Fla.App.1966, 181 So. 2d 697. The second point presents a somewhat more difficult problem. This relates to the denial by the trial judge of the motion for a new trial, one of the grounds of which was that the jurors had arrived at a “quotient” verdict. Attached to the motion w…
-
Tillie W. LEE v. Dade Cnty., 342 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…(Fla. 3d DCA 1973). In addition, there being contradictory evidence presented on the negligence issue, it was not error to refuse to direct a verdict for appellant on the issue of liability. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Linder, 181 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). After having considered the record, all points in the briefs and arguments of counsel in the light of the controlling principles [*848] of law, we conclude that no reversible error has been demonstrated. Therefore, for the reaso…
Authorities Cited
- Ansin v. Thurston, 98 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)