CHARLIE LAND, III, BY HIS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, CHARLIE LAND, JR., AND CHARLIE LAND, JR., INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
HARGIS PATRONI AND NETTIE H. PATRONI, 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 court held that the trial court did not err in denying the plaintiffs' motions for a directed verdict and a new trial.
Plaintiffs sued for damages after a minor plaintiff was injured in a motorcycle-automobile collision with a defendant driver. The trial involved issue…
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 Error Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiffs appeal a final judgment for defendants entered consequent upon a jury verdict rendered in defendants’ favor after trial. Appellants contend the trial court erred in denying their motion for directed verdict on the question of liability at the conclusion of the evidence, and further erred in denying their motion for a new trial.
This is an action for damages suffered by minor plaintiff arising from injuries sustained when a motorcycle operated by him collided with an automobile operated by defendant wife and owned by defendant husband. The issues presented for trial concern the alleged negligence of defendant and alleged contributory negligence of the plaintiff minor. Plaintiffs’ motions for a directed verdict and a new trial raise questions which are strictly evidentiary in nature. In denying these motion the trial court expressed the view that the verdict is sustainable either on- the ground that plaintiffs failed to establish primary negligence on the part of defendant, or on the ground that defendants’ evidence is sufficient to establish contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff.
We have carefully reviewed the trial testimony and depositions offered in evidence during the trial. Viewing this evidence in a light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, we are not persuaded that appellants have demonstrated an abuse of discretion or error of law on the part of the trial *95judge in his rendition of the judgment appealed. The judgment is accordingly affirmed.
WIGGINTON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Underwriters Nat'l Assurance Co. v. Earle A. Harrison, 338 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…, here appellant, appeal from a final judgment based upon a jury verdict for a plaintiff, here [*60] appellee, all of the testimony and all proper inferences therefrom must be construed most favorably to the plaintiff. , See, e. g., Land v. Patroni, 214 So. 2d 94 (Fla.1st DCA 1968); and F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Stevens, 154 So. 2d 201 (Fla.3d DCA 1963). While an appellate court may not always agree with the conclusions of the jury from the conflicting evidentiary facts presented to it, the court is generally b…
-
Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Campbell, 306 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)…be drawn from the evidence and the verdict is favored with a .presumption of correctness. (See Mansell v. Eidge, Fla.App. 3rd 1965, 179 So. 2d 624; Zippy Mart, Inc. v. Mercer, Fla.App. 1st 1970, 244 So. 2d 522 and Land v. Patroni, Fla.App. 1st 1968, 214 So. 2d 94) In Martin v. Tindell, Sup.Ct.Fla.1957, 98 So. 2d 473, the Supreme Court said: “Therefore, viewing the evidence, including all inferences fairly deducible therefrom, in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as we are required to do, we conclude t…
-
Graves v. Wiggins, 257 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…reasonable inferences from the evidence requires affirmance upon the issue as to appellant’s knowledge of the dangerous condition and the issue as to appellant’s negligence being a proximate cause of appellee’s injury. Land v. Patroni, Fla.App.1968, 214 So. 2d 94; Krasny v. Richter, Fla.App.1968, 211 So. 2d 612. In addition we find that the evidence is susceptible to the view that the appellant and the appellee were engaged in a joint undertaking for their own pleasure and [*269] that appellant as a partici…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence