RICHARD LASBY, A MINOR, BY HIS NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, DORIS LASBY, AND DORIS LASBY, APPELLANTS,
v.
DONALD WOOD, A MINOR, ET AL., 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.
Plaintiffs Richard and Doris Lasby appealed a directed verdict in favor of Allstate Insurance Company, which denied coverage for a motorcycle-automobile collision. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the trial court improperly directed a verdict against plaintiffs at the close of their case when questions of fact remained for a jury.
The trial court erred in directing a verdict against plaintiffs because, when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, a jury could lawfully find a verdict for plaintiffs. The directed verdict was improper and must be reversed.
[1] A trial court may not grant a directed verdict against a plaintiff unless the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, is such that a jury could not…
[2] A separate trial on the issue of insurance coverage is permissible in an action to determine liability insurance coverage for a collision.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“A trial court may not grant a directed verdict against a plaintiff unless the evidence and all inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, are such that the jury could not lawfully find a verdict for plaintiff.”
States the controlling legal standard for directed verdicts in Florida
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn action for damages was filed against Donald Wood (the automobile driver), Charles Wood (the automobile owner operating a repair service), and Allst…
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 Liability Insurance cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants-plaintiffs, Richard Lasby, by his next friend and natural guardian, Doris Lasby, and Doris Lasby, appeal a final judgment entered in favor of appellee-de-fendant, Allstate Insurance Company, in an action to determine the existence vel non of liability insurance coverage for a motorcycle-automobile collision. We reverse.
An action for damages was filed by appellants-plaintiffs against Donald Wood, the driver of the automobile, his father and owner of the automobile, Charles Wood, doing business as Woody’s Repair Service, and Allstate Insurance Company, the alleged carrier of liability insurance for Woody’s Repair Service. Allstate contended that its insurance policy issued to Woody’s Repair Service had expired prior to the date of the collision, and if not expired, that it provided coverage for only non-owned motor vehicles. The trial court ordered a separate trial on the existence vel non of insurance coverage, and at the close of plaintiff’s case, directed a verdict in favor of Allstate. This appeal followed.
On appeal, the sole issue presented is whether the trial court erred in directing a verdict for appellee-defendant, Allstate Insurance Company, at the close of appellants-plaintiffs’ case. The law in Florida on directed verdicts is clear. A trial court may not grant a directed verdict against a plaintiff unless the evidence and all inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, are such that the jury could not lawfully find a verdict for plaintiff. See Swilley v. Economy Cab Co., 56 So.2d 914 (Fla.1951); Ball v. Inland Mutual Insurance Co., 121 So.2d 470 (Fla.App.1960); Furr v. Gulf Exhibition Corporation, 114 So.2d 27 (Fla.App.1959).
Applying this test to the evidence submitted by plaintiff we are unable to say that a jury, when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff could not lawfully find a verdict for plaintiff.
Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with the views herein expressed.
Reversed and remanded.
WALDEN, CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Levine v. Frank, 311 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…directed verdict against a plaintiff unless the evidence and all inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, are such that the jury could not lawfully find a verdict for plaintiff.” Lasby v. Wood, Fla.App. 1973, 274 So. 2d 894, 895. Accord, Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Morgan, Fla.App.1968, 213 So. 2d 632. The court’s view of the plaintiff’s evidence on motion by a defendant for a directed verdict must favor the plaintiff and any conflict in the evidence must be…
-
Murphy v. Bernard M. Utset, M.D., 316 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…ant case were proper for a jury determination and that such determination was erroneously set aside. See Landry v. Sterling Apartments, Inc., Fla.App.1969, 231 So. 2d 225; Mathis v. Lambert, Fla.App.1973, 274 So. 2d 601; Lasby v. Wood, Fla.App.1973, 274 So. 2d 894. Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to enter judgment for the plaintiff on the jury verdict. Reversed and remanded. cur. WALDEN and MAGER, JJ., and GRID-LEY, WILLIAM C., Associate Judge, co…
-
BOB Grice Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Owle, 563 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…STONE, Judge, dissenting. In my judgment, directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on this claim of fraudulent misrepresentation was an abuse of discretion. I would reverse. Lasby v. Wood, 274 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). Despite testimony by the defense witnesses favorable to the plaintiff, there remained disputed issues to be resolved by the jury concerning whether statements of the defendant’s agent constituted intentional misrepresentation.…
Authorities Cited
- Swilley v. Econ. Cab Co. of Jacksonville, 56 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 1951)
- Lili Merritt Furr and Waiter R. Furr v. Gulf Exhibition Corp., 114 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- Ball v. Inland Mut. Ins. Co., 121 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)