JESSE BOWLES GLENN, APPELLANT,
v.
THOMAS R. GIBSON AND JULIA B. GIBSON, 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.
The appellate court affirmed a judgment based on a jury verdict in a negligence action, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's decision and rejecting the appellant's claim that a directed verdict should have been granted.
No, there was sufficient evidence to create a jury issue, and the court correctly denied the motion for a directed verdict.
“It is appellant's contention that there was insufficient evidence to take the case to the jury and that the court should have directed a verdict in favor of the appellant.”
This quote states the appellant's main argument on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, as the defendant in a negligence lawsuit, was accused of causing an automobile collision that injured the plaintiffs. The jury returned…
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 Directed Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was the defendant in a negligence action wherein plaintiffs charged defendant with negligently causing an automobile collision that injured plaintiffs. Defendant appeals from an adverse judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict.
It is appellant’s contention that there was insufficient evidence to take the case to the jury and that the court should have directed a verdict in favor of the appellant. We find no merit in this contention.
The record on appeal indicates that there was sufficient evidence to create a jury issue and the court was correct in denying the motion for directed verdict. It is our view that the jury verdict should not be disturbed as no error has been clearly made to appear. Therefore, the judgment appealed is affirmed. See Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Gary, Fla.1951, 57 So.2d 10; Mercy Hospital, Inc. v. Larkins, Fla.App.1965, 174 So.2d 408; Sears, Roebuck & Company v. Sheppard, Fla.App.1967, 194 So.2d 62.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mercy Hosp., Inc. v. Larkins, 174 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Sears v. Romelda Sheppard and Arthur Sheppard, 194 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)