FRED WILLIAM HEUACKER
v.
H. FARRELLY AND R. T. COMBER
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.
In this negligence action arising from an automobile accident, the trial court entered judgment non obstante veredicto for defendant Comber despite a jury verdict for plaintiff. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the judgment against Comber, finding recent precedent prohibited such judgment, and affirmed the trial court's conditional grant of a new trial to defendant Farrelly unless plaintiff remitted $2,500 of the $5,000 verdict.
The judgment non obstante veredicto for Comber must be reversed and the case remanded for the trial court to rule on Comber's motion for new trial as if the judgment had never been entered. The trial court's order granting Farrelly a new trial conditioned upon plaintiff's remittal of $2,500 is affirmed.
“The judgment non obstante veredicto in favor of Comber. must be reversed upon authority of the recent cases of Dudley v. Harrison McCready & Co., 128 Fla. 338, 173 So. 820, and Talley v. McCain, 128 Fla. 418, 174 So. 841”
Establishes that recent precedent compels reversal of the judgment non obstante veredicto against Comber
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff brought an action against defendants Farrelly and Comber for personal injuries allegedly caused by Farrelly's negligent driving of an automo…
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 Ownership Of Vehicle cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff in error brought an action against
defendants in error Farrelly and Comber, for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by Farrelly’s negligent driving of an automobile belonging to Comber, which Farrelly was driving with Comber’s knowledge and consent. There was some conflict in the evidence, both as to the questions of negligence of the driver of the car and the ownership of the car by Comber. There was a general verdict in favor of plaintiff in error against both defendants for $5,000.00 damages. Both defendants interposed motions for new trial, and Comber also filed motion for judgment non obstante veredicto.
The trial judge rendered a judgment non obstante veredicto in favor of Comber, on the ground that the evidence was sufficient to prove several of the pleas interposed by him and in doing so stated that the entry of said judgment made it unnecessary to rule upon Comber’s motion for new trial.
As to defendant Farrelly’s motion for new trial, the trial court ordered that said motion be granted “unless the plaintiff shall within ten days enter a remittitur in the sum of $2,500.00, whereupon said motion shall stand denied. To this order both the plaintiff and defendant excepted.
The case is now before us on writ of error sued out by the plaintiff in the court below.
The judgment non obstante veredicto in favor of Comber. must be reversed upon authority of the recent cases of Dudley v. Harrison McCready & Co., 128 Fla. 338, 173 So. 820, and Talley v. McCain, 128 Fla. 418, 174 So. 841, and the cause remanded with directions that the lower court proceed to hear and dispose of defendant Comber’s motion *241for new trial just as if the judgment non obstante veredicto had never been entered.
In view of the evidence in this case, we find no error in the trial court’s order granting Farrelly a new trial unless plaintiff entered a remittitur of $2,500.00, which order is hereby affirmed.
Reversed and remanded with directions as to defendant in error, R. T. Comber, and affirmed as to order granting defendant in error, H. Farrelly, a new trial unless plaintiff Heuacker entered a remittitur, as provided in said order.
Whitfield, Terrell, Brown, . Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
6551 Collins Ave. Corp. v. Beverlee Millen, 104 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 1958)…authority, either by statute or by judicial decision, to enter a judgment non obstante veredicto on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence. See Dudley v. Harrison, McCready & Co., 1937, 127 Fla. 687, 173 So. 820; Heuacker v. Farrelly, 1937, 129 Fla. 239, 176 So. 98; Okeechobee Co., for Use and Benefit of Hamrick v. Norton, 1942, 149 Fla. 651, 6 So. 2d 632; Hilkmeyer v. Latin American Air Cargo Expediters, Fla.1957, 94 So. 2d 821. Thus, Rule 2.7(b) introduced an entirely new concept into our trial…
-
Okeechobee Co. v. Norton, 149 Fla. 651 (Fla. 1942)…veredicto. It is well settled that a judgment non obstante veredicto can be granted only for matters and things appearing on the face of the pleadings and never on the evidence. See Talley v. McCain, 128 Fla. 418, 174 So. 841; Heuacker v. Farrelly, 129 Fla. 239, 176 So. 98, Dudley v. Harrison, McCready & Co., 127 Fla. 687, 173 So. 820. The bill of particulars filed under Common Law Rule No. 85 discloses that the defendants claimed title under a deed from A. B. Adkins to E. L. Tillman dated August 2, 1932,…
Authorities Cited
- Dudley v. Harrison, 127 Fla. 687 (Fla. 1937)
- Talley v. McCain, 128 Fla. 418 (Fla. 1937)
- Dudley v. Harrison, 128 Fla. 338 (Fla. 1937)