JOHN C. GRAVES, II, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT WIGGINS, 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.
The court affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on the issues of appellant's knowledge and proximate cause.
[1] On appeal, the record must be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, with the appellee entitled to all reasonable inferences from the evidence.
[2] Evidence is sufficient to support a finding of negligence when it shows a legal duty to warn, knowledge of a dangerous condition, and that the negligence was a proximate…
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 intelligenceA jury awarded damages to the plaintiff-appellant and the defendant-appellee. The appeal concerns the $5,000 judgment entered against the plaintiff-ap…
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 Joint Undertaking cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from the final judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict. The cause was submitted to the jury under the law of comparative negligence which the parties agreed was applicable because the action was for a maritime tort. The verdict was for the plaintiff-appellant and against the defendant-appellee in the amount of $15,000, and for the defendant-counterclaimant against the plaintiff-coun-terdefendant for $5,000. The appeal is from the $5,000 judgment entered against the plaintiff-appellant as counterdefendant. No issue is raised as to the way in which the cause was tried or to the form of the verdict.
The point presented challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as to the negligence of the appellant. Most importantly, it is urged that the facts presented to the jury did not show a legal duty on the appellant to warn the appellee of a dangerous condition. In the alternative it is urged that the facts failed to show appellant’s knowledge of the dangerous condition and that negligence, if any, of appellant was a proximate cause of appellee’s injury.
Our examination of the record convinces us that the application of the rule that upon appeal the appellee is entitled to have the record viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict and that the appellee is entitled to all 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 *269that appellant as a participant was aware of the danger involved and appellee was not, nevertheless, appellant proceeded with action which was a contributing cause to appellee’s injury. Cf. Judy v. Belk, Fla.App.1966, 181 So.2d 694; Cashell v. Hart, Fla.App.1962, 143 So.2d 559.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dixie Farms, Inc. v. Timmons, 323 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…the truck and into the intersection without exercising ordinary care in order to avoid a collision. [*640] Under these circumstances, an appellate court will not reverse a jury finding of negligence. See the rule in Graves v. Wiggins, Fla.App.1972, 257 So. 2d 268. Affirmed.…
-
Fountainhead Motel, Inc. v. Massey, 336 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…t of the jury on disputed questions of fact. On appeal from an adverse judgment after a jury verdict, an appellate court must view the record and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the appellee. See Graves v. Wiggins, 257 So. 2d 268 (Fla.3d DCA 1972), and Krasny v. Richter, 211 So. 2d 612 (Fla.3d DCA 1968); and 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals § 308. [*399] We have considered the record, all points in the briefs, and arguments of counsel in the light of the controlling principles of law, an…
-
Minn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Candelore, 416 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…This means most favorable to the appellee. All reasonable inferences will be drawn from the evidence in favor of the party who has convinced the jury. Underwriters Nat’l Assurance Co. v. Harrison, 338 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Graves v. Wiggins, 257 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Krasny v. Richter, 211 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). This is especially true where that convincing party was the plaintiff who had to prove her case by a preponderance of the evidence. The evidence showed that Joseph Cande-lore…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Samuel B. Krasny et ux. v. Richter, 211 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Cashell v. Hart, 143 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Land v. Hargis Patroni and Nettie H. Patroni, 214 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)
- Judy v. Belk, 181 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)