JOHN W. CAMPBELL, APPELLANT,
v.
GERTRUDE WILEY, APPELLEE
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 a negligence action arising from a plaintiff's injury when she stepped into an uncovered irrigation well, the defendant-appellant challenged the jury verdict on grounds of contributory negligence and workers' compensation bar. The Florida appellate court affirmed the verdict, holding that both issues were properly submitted to the jury and that the defendant's unsupported testimony regarding workers' compensation coverage was insufficient to warrant a directed verdict.
The court held that both the contributory negligence issue and the workers' compensation defense were properly submitted to the jury rather than resolved by directed verdict. The defendant's unsupported testimony that he had procured workers' compensation coverage was insufficient to warrant a directed verdict, particularly where he offered no policy or documentary evidence of coverage.
“Under this statement of facts the question of contributory negligence was for the jury.”
Establishes that contributory negligence was a jury issue, not a matter of law warranting directed verdict
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellee (Wiley) was injured when she stepped into an uncapped nine-inch diameter hole in a dirt road, one of a series of irrigation wells. A ceme…
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 Workmen'S Compensation cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant appeals a final judgment entered upon a jury verdict for the plaintiff. The principal points on appeal question the refusal of the trial judge to direct a verdict for the defendant-appellant. First, it is urged that the verdict should have been directed because the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. Second, it is urged that the verdict should have been directed because the record affirmatively establishes that the plaintiff was covered by Workmen’s Compensation and that therefore the action was barred by § 440.11, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.1
The appellee was injured when she stepped into an uncapped hole nine inches in diameter in the middle of a dirt road. The hole was one of a series of wells used to provide water for the irrigation of a field. A cement cap was provided for each hole. No cement cap covered the hole into which the appellee stepped, and the visibility of the hole was impaired by surrounding weeds and grass.
Under this statement of facts the question of contributory negligence was for the jury. Bartholf v. Baker, Fla.1954, 71 So.2d 480, 484; City of Jacksonville v. Stokes, Fla.1954, 74 So.2d 278.
*514The appellant’s contention that the appellee’s recovery is barred by the Workmen’s Compensation Act is an affirmative defense. The appellant sought to carry the burden of proving this affirmative defense by testifying that “he had Workmen’s Compensation insurance for all of his agricultural workers.” It appears from the record that the appellant did not offer the appellee any of the benefits of the act. Further, he did not produce a policy of insurance or any document showing coverage of the appellee. Under these circumstances it was not incumbent upon the trial judge to direct a verdict upon the simple statement of the defendant that he had procured coverage. One does not necessarily have to believe the testimony of a party when it was unsupported by inferences from the facts. See Miller v. James, Fla.App.1966, 187 So.2d 901, 903.
The appellant has presented two other points each directed to the conduct of the trial. Reversible error has not been demonstrated in either case.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bartholf v. Baker, 71 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 1954)
- City of Jacksonville v. Stokes, 74 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1954)
- Miller v. James, 187 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)