THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY, A MARYLAND CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
PEARL STEPHENS, APPELLEE
THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY, A MARYLAND CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
PEARL STEPHENS, APPELLEE
201 So. 2d 466
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1967)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case
Opinion of the Court
This is an appeal by the defendant, The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, from a final judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict returned for the plaintiff in a slip and fall case.
Admittedly, the evidence was conflicting. But it is not the function of the appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the jury on disputed questions of fact. Where the evidence is conflicting, and the verdict not manifestly against the weight of the evidence, the jury verdict should not be disturbed. 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, § 308.
Since no reversible error has been found, we
Affirm.
WALDEN, C. J., CROSS, J., and LOPEZ, AQUILINO, Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Peninsula State Bank v. United States, 211 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 1968)…ROBERTS, Justice. This cause is before the court on certio-rari granted to review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, in United States v. Strollo, Fla.App. 1967, 201 So. 2d 466. Jurisdiction attached under Article V, Section 4(2), Fla.Const., F.S.A. because of a direct conflict with the decision of this court in Evins v. Gainesville National Bank, 80 Fla. 84, 85 So. 659 (1920), and similar cases. The point of law with whi…