JULIA BAKER
v.
PEAVY-WILSON LUMBER COMPANY
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 wrongful death action for a negligent death of a minor son, the trial court set aside a jury verdict in plaintiff's favor and granted a new trial. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the order granting a new trial, rejecting the defendant's challenge to plaintiff's standing based on the presumed death of the father, and holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a new trial.
The court held that no error was committed in refusing the defendant's plea regarding the presumption of the father's death, and that the plaintiff mother had the right of action given the father's fourteen-year abandonment and failure to support the family. The court further held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a new trial based on grounds including justice considerations, though the court expressed no opinion on the weight or sufficiency of the evidence itself.
“the father deserted his family in 1925 and has not since been heard of by the mother, a period of fourteen years in which he contributed nothing to the support of his family and in fact so far as they know, he is dead”
Establishes the factual basis for presuming the father's death and justifying the mother's standing to sue
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJulia Baker's minor son, not yet seventeen years old, was killed due to the defendant's negligence. The boy was a good character and earning approxima…
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 Presumption Of Death cases and more on FLexlaw
In a common-law action for the negligent death of a minor son, plaintiff in error recovered a judgment against defendant in error which on motion was set aside and a new trial was granted. This writ of error is to the order granting the new trial.
Plaintiff in error contends that the trial judge granted the new trial because he differed from the jury as to the credibility of the witnesses and.as to the probative effect of the evidence.
The order granting the new trial shows that four elements were in the mind of the court when he made it, viz.: (1) Sufficiency of his charge as to the effect of the plea of contributing negligence; (2) refusal of defendant’s plea as to presumption of the death of plaintiff’s husband; (3) the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence and (4) justice requires that a new trial be granted.
No error was committed in refusing defendant’s plea as to death of plaintiff’s husband. We are mindful of the statute, Section 7049, Compiled General Laws of 1927, providing that “the father of such minor child or if the father be not living, the mother, may maintain an action for the wrongful death,” but here the record shows that the father deserted his family in 1925 and has not since been heard of by the mother, a period of fourteen years in which he contributed nothing to the support of his family and in fact so far as they know, he is dead.
It is further shown that plaintiff’s deceased minor child had not quite attained his seventeenth birthday at the time of his death, that he was an apt negro boy of good character, that he was making about two dollars per day, was contributing liberally to the support of his mother at the time *793of his death, and had been for some time, that his mother, the plaintiff, had raised him and had been entirely responsible for his upbringing.
Under such circumstances, we will indulge the presumption that the right of action was in the mother and that so far as this action is concerned, the father is dead. Any other view would amount to a denial of any right of action on the part of the mother.
As to the other grounds on which the new trial was granted, we cannot say that the trial court abused his discretion. While we express no opinion as to the weight or sufficiency of the evidence, neither is the trial judge permitted to weigh the evidence, yet he does not exceed his prerogative in finding that justice demands that the cause be submitted to another jury.
His judgment is therefore affirmed but with directions that on the doing down of the mandate, he may reconsider his judgment in the light of this opinion and after doing so, if he feels that his order granting a new trial was unwarranted, he is authorized to set it aside and overrule the motion.
•Affirmed with directions.
Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Brown and Chapman not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Diamante Urga v. State, 160 Fla. 740 (Fla. 1948)…of this jurisdiction that a trial judge may award a new trial, even in the face of a verdict based upon conflicting evidence, if he finds that justice demands that the cause be submitted to another [*744] jury. Baker v. Peavy-Wilson Lumber Company, 140 Fla. 791, 192 So. 193. In the case at bar I find not only that the evidence offered by the contending parties at the trial was in sharp conflict, but also that the evidence offered by the appellant to sustain, the allegations of her petition was conflicting…
-
Baker v. Peavy-Wilson Lumber Co., 145 Fla. 116 (Fla. 1940)…Buford, J. On writ of error we review order granting a new trial. This is the second appearance on the case here. See Baker v. Peavy-Wilson Lumber Company, 140 Fla. 791, 192 So. 193. After the',case went back to the circuit court an addi [*117] tional plea was filed alleging: “That the father of L. B. Baker, a minor child, is still living,'and defendant denies that the said father is dead; and that there is no righ…