JOSE RIO SECO, FATHER AND NEXT BEST FRIEND AND GUARDIAN OF FELIX JUAN RIO SECO, A MINOR, APPELLANT,
v.
ALFRED MEYERS TRUCKING, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND JOHN T. JOHNSON, JOINTLY AND 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.
A passenger in a car struck by a truck at an intersection appeals a directed verdict entered for the truck driver and vehicle owner. The Florida appellate court reversed, holding that the trial judge improperly directed a verdict when the evidence could support a reasonable inference that the defendant was negligent.
A directed verdict should not be entered at the close of plaintiff's case unless the plaintiff cannot recover under any reasonable view of the evidence. When conflicting reasonable inferences may be drawn from the admitted facts regarding negligence and causation, such questions must go to the jury.
“A directed verdict ought not be entered at the close of plaintiff's case unless the plaintiff cannot recover under any reasonable view of the evidence.”
Establishes the standard for when directed verdicts are permissible
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn automobile carrying the minor plaintiff as a passenger was struck by a trailer truck at an intersection. Both drivers had stopped at their respecti…
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 Reasonable Inferences From Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was a passenger in an automobile which was struck by a trailer truck at an intersection. At the conclusion •of plaintiff’s case, the trial judge directed :a verdict for the defendant-appellee, John T. Johnson, driver of the truck and for the appellee, owner.
A directed verdict ought not be entered at the close of plaintiff’s case unless the plaintiff cannot recover under any reasonable view of the evidence. De Salvo v. Curry, 160 Fla. 7, 33 So.2d 215 (1948); Martin v. Rivera, Fla.App.1958, 99 So.2d 617. Even where the evidence is not in dispute, when conflicting reasonable inferences may be drawn from the admitted facts, questions of negligence and negligent causation are peculiarly questions of fact which should be permitted to go to the jury. Mason v. Remick, Fla.App.1958, 107 So.2d 38; see also Nielsen v. City of Sarasota, Fla.1960, 117 So.2d 731, 733.
At this point it should be noted that a passenger is not, by the mere fact of being a passenger, charged with the negligence of his driver. See Miami Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. Mahlo, Fla.1950, 45 So.2d 119; Besset v. Hackett, Fla.1953, 66 So.2d 694, 698.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff’s case, the evidence showed that the collision occurred at an intersection where defendant-driver and plaintiff’s driver entered from opposite sides of a through street. Each driver stopped at a governing stop sign and then entered the intersection. The plaintiff-driver turned to the left on the through street and his automobile was struck on the right rear by defendant’s truck which was turning right to proceed in the same direction. Neither driver admitted seeing the other.
If the evidence is susceptible to reasonable view that either (a) the defendant-driver alone was negligent or (b) both drivers were negligent, the verdict ought not have been directed. A verdict could only be directed if the evidence at the close of plaintiff’s case conclusively shows (c) that only plaintiff’s driver was negligent or (d) neither driver was negligent.
The evidence is clearly susceptible to the view “(a)” or “(b)” above and therefore does not conclusively show “(c)” or “(d)”.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Acevedo v. Justo L. Acosta, 296 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…tomobile is not imputable to a passenger therein. See Bessett v. Hackett, Fla.1953, 66 So. 2d 694; Kokotoff v. Higman, Fla.App.1958, 101 So. 2d 166; Dubov v. Ropes, Fla.App.1960, 124 So. 2d 34; Rio Seco v. Alfred Meyers Trucking, Inc., Fla.App.1968, 208 So. 2d 265. We therefore affirm the award to the plaintiff-passenger of 100% of his damages. The question as to whether the damages allowed to the father should be reduced upon his claim for money expended on behalf of his son is a more difficult one. The cla…
-
Cooper v. Fenton Brace & Limb Co., Inc., 350 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…te, when conflicting reasonable inferences may be drawn from the admitted facts, questions of negligence and negligence causation are peculiarly questions of fact which should be permitted to go to the jury. Rio Seco v. Alfred Meyers Trucking, Inc., 208 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). Our review of the evidence in this case leads us to the conclusion that there were conflicting reasonable inferences on the question of negligence and negligence causation based on all the evidence which precluded the entry of a…
-
Merita K. Smiley v. James M. Court, 243 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…y. Co. v. Hayes, Fla.1914, 66 Fla. 589, 64 So. 274; Moore v. Dietrich, 1938, 133 Fla. 809, 183 So. 2; Brightwell v. Beem, Fla.1956, 90 So. 2d 320; Martin v. Rivera, Fla.App.1958, 99 So. 2d 617; Rio Seco v. Alfred Meyers Trucking, Inc., Fla.App.1968, 208 So. 2d 265. The negligence of Smiley is a more difficult question and borderline question. To maintain an action for negligence three elements are required: (1) existence of a duty on the part of the defendant to protect the plaintiff from the injury or dama…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Bohanan, 66 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 1953)
- Dade Cnty. Port Auth. & Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Keller, 117 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1960)
- Nielsen v. City OF Sarasota, 117 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1960)
- Desalvo v. Curry, 160 Fla. 7 (Fla. 1948)
- Miami Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. Mahlo, 45 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 1950)
- Burt John Mason v. Remick, 107 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Martin v. Gregoria Rivera, 99 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)