THE MOTOR TRANSIT COMPANY, A CORP.,
v.
LOUISE BETHEA
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 affirmed a jury verdict awarding damages for personal injuries. The court found substantial evidence supported the jury's conclusion that the defendant's bus driver was negligent and that the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent.
Yes, there was substantial legal evidence from which the jury could reasonably find the defendant negligent and the plaintiff not contributorily negligent.
“The evidence was in many respects conflicting, but there was substantial legal evidence from which the jury could have reasonably found that the plaintiff was entitled to recover because of the negligence of the defendant's agent and servant in driving the bus in such manner as to approach the plaintiff from the left rear without giving warning and in turning into an intersecting street, entering such intersecting street beyond the middle line of the intersection.”
Establishes the court's finding of sufficient evidence for the jury's negligence determination.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Louise Bethea sustained personal injuries when she came into contact with a motor bus owned by The Motor Transit Company. The evidence prese…
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 writ of error brings for review judgment in favor of plaintiff in suit for damages occasioned by personal injuries sustained by plaintiff when she came in contact with defendant’s motor bus.
The evidence was in many respects conflicting, but there was substantial legal evidence from which the jury could have'reasonably found that the plaintiff was entitled to recover because of the negligence of the defendant’s agent and servant in driving the bus in such manner as to approach the plaintiff from the left rear without giving warning and in turning into an intersecting street, entering such intersecting street beyond the middle line of the intersection. There was also sufficient legal evidence to warrant the jury in reaching the conclusion that the plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence or that the defendant had failed to establish the existence of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff by a preponderance of the evidence. The trial judge approved the conclusion reached by the jury by denying motion for new trial.
The record fails, to disclose reversible error.
The questions presented by the plaintiff in error in its brief are predicated upon the assumption that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conclusions above set forth. As such premise cannot be indulged, it is unnecessary to discuss here the questions stated.
The judgment should be affirmed.
*682It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Ei-lis, C. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J.,- concur.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)…a misconception by the trial judge of a controlling principle of law can constitute grounds for reversal. E. g., Aronson v. Siquier, 318 So. 2d 452 (3d DCA Fla. 1975); Green v. Putnam, 93 So. 2d 378 (Fla.1957); Knight v. City of Miami, 127 Fla. 585, 173 So. 801 (1937). The trial court’s imposition of a constructive trust could well be supported by evidence adduced at trial but not stated in the judge’s order or otherwise apparent in the incomplete record on appeal. The question raised by Barnett Bank clea…
-
Green v. Putnam, 93 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 1957)…ption to-this rule as well settled as the rule itself. That exception is where in deciding a cause-it appears that the chancellor misconceived a controlling principle of law applicable to-the controversy. Knight v. City of Miami, 1937, 127 Fla. 585, 173 So. 801. Here it is clear that the chancellor misconceived the law as relating to the essential factors constituting the relationship of co-adventurers- and his order must be reversed. We are careful to state that this opinion shall in no way be construed…
-
Heavener v. R. W. Fla. Region, Inc., 418 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…, Russell v. Florida Ranch Lands, Inc., 414 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Temporary injunctions have been recognized as a viable form of relief in a suit for tortious interference with a contract. See, e.g., Knight v. City of Miami, 127 Fla. 585, 173 So. 801 (1937); Dade Enterprises, Inc. v. Wometco Theaters, Inc., 119 Fla. 70, 160 So. 209 (1935). However the proof required for each of these elements is not clear and in suits of this type [*1076] irreparable harm is sometimes assumed.1 In Insurance Fiel…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence