ESTES, INC., D/B/A GOODY SHOES, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT CO., 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.
Estes, Inc. appeals from a directed verdict in favor of Florida Power and Light Co. after plaintiff failed to present evidence of negligence regarding a burned-out electric motor. The court affirms, holding that plaintiff presented no evidence of specific negligence and failed to establish a prima facie case under res ipsa loquitur.
The court held that the plaintiff failed to present any evidence of specific negligence by the defendant and failed to establish the elements necessary for res ipsa loquitur to apply. Without evidence that the motor would not have failed except for defendant's negligence, the doctrine does not apply and the directed verdict was proper.
[1] A directed verdict for the defendant is proper when the plaintiff fails to present evidence establishing a prima facie case of negligence.
[2] The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply when there is no evidence to support a presumption that the injury would not have occurred but for the defendant's neglig…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the plaintiff, having rested, had not adduced any evidence whatsoever to show the defendant to be guilty of negligence in the premises, and, that the evidence failed to make out a prima facie case, under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur”
States the basis for the directed verdict—plaintiff presented no evidence of negligence or circumstantial evidence sufficient to invoke res ipsa loquitur
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEstes, Inc. operated an electric motor that had been in service for more than five years to drive an air conditioning compressor. The motor burned out…
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 Res Ipsa Loquitur cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, appeals from a final judgment entered in favor of the defendant upon a directed verdict for the defendant, by reason that, the plaintiff, having rested, had not adduced any evidence whatsoever to show the defendant to be guilty of negligence in the premises, and, that the evidence failed to make out a prima facie case, under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, so as to cast the burden upon the defendant to disprove its liability for the break-down and failure of an electric motor which had been in operation for more than five years driving plaintiff’s air conditioning compressor. We affirm.
The electric motor in question had been repaired several times during its more than five years of operation, and there was no evidence presented from which it might be concluded that it burned out, overheated, or was affected adversely in any respect by the cessation or resumption of the flow of electric current, or due to the variation, or surges, in voltage being supplied by defendant power company.
The record shows that there was no evidence presented from which a jury could conclude that the defendant was guilty of any specific act of negligence. The plaintiff failed to adduce evidence to show, or even tend to show, that the electric motor would not have burned out except by reason of negligence of the defendant.
Therefore, as the record shows no evidence to support a finding of negligence; and, as there is no evidence to support a presumption that the motor could not have failed except for negligence of the defendant, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur would not apply, no error of the trial judge has been demonstrated and the judgment below will be affirmed.
Affirmed.
CROSS, C. J., and REED, J„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Burgin v. Shelton Merritt, III, 311 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…principles set forth have been followed in a great many cases. St. Petersburg Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Cuccinello, Fla.1950, 44 So. 2d 670; Stanek v. Houston, Fla.App.1964, 165 So. 2d 825; Estes, Inc. v. Florida Power and Light Co., Fla.App. 1970, 242 So. 2d 474. It has been pointed out that res ipsa is ordinarily unavailable to the plaintiff in automobile accident cases. See McGinley v. Chancey, Fla.1953, 70 So. 2d 357; Abrams v. Nolan Brown Cadillac Company, Fla.App.1969, 228 So. 2d 131. There remains for…