WINFRED JONES, AS SURVIVING HUSBAND OF JOAN JONES, AND WINFRED JONES, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANT,
v.
LEROY SMITH 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.
In a wrongful death and personal injury action arising from a highway accident, the court reversed a directed verdict against the plaintiff, finding that evidence of a tire blowout caused by alleged underinflation presented a jury question rather than a matter suitable for summary dismissal. The court held that when circumstantial evidence permits reasonable inferences supporting plaintiff's negligence claim, even if other inferences are also possible, the case must go to the jury.
The directed verdict was improper because the circumstantial evidence presented a reasonable inference that the tire's bending was caused by General Tire's underinflation, even though other reasonable inferences were also possible. When evidence is susceptible to multiple reasonable inferences—some supporting and some contradicting the plaintiff's negligence claim—the case must be submitted to the jury.
[1] A directed verdict is improper when the circumstantial evidence presented permits a reasonable inference that supports the plaintiff's negligence claim, even if other inf…
[2] In a negligence action, if the established circumstances are susceptible of a reasonable inference authorizing recovery, a jury question is presented.
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“where the circumstances established by the evidence are susceptible of a reasonable inference which would authorize recovery, and are also susceptible of a reasonable inference to the contrary, a jury question is presented”
Establishes the fundamental rule that when circumstantial evidence permits competing reasonable inferences, the case must go to the jury rather than being resolved by directed verdict.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff's wife was killed and plaintiff was injured when a vehicle driven by defendant Smith collided with plaintiff's vehicle. Plaintiff alleged th…
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 Reasonable Inference cases and more on FLexlaw
The issue is whether or not the trial court erred in granting a motion for directed verdict against the plaintiff and in favor of defendant General Tire & Rubber Company and its insurance carrier Liberty Mutual Insurance Company in a personal injury and wrongful death action brought by the plaintiff as a result of an unfortunate highway accident.
Factually the plaintiff’s theory was that General Tire & Rubber Company was negligent in underinflating a tire on a vehicle driven by one Smith — also a defendant. As a result, the tire blew out, causing Smith’s vehicle to hit plaintiff’s vehicle resulting in injuries to plaintiff and death to his wife. The parties have ábly briefed and argued the issue and there is very little we can add to their presentation except to say that in our opinion the issue of General Tire’s negligence should have been left to the jury.
The cause of the tire failure according to the plaintiff’s expert was excessive bending along the side wall of the tire. The essential fact to be established in support of plaintiff’s case was that the bending was caused by the conduct of General Tire rather than some other agency for which General Tire was not responsible. The circumstantial evidence presented by the plaintiff permits a reasonable inference that the bending was the result of the defendant’s underinflation of the tire when defendant sold it to Smith about 30 days before the accident. While the same evi*344dence might be susceptible of other reasonable inferences which do not support the plaintiff’s negligence claim against General Tire, where the circumstances established by the evidence are susceptible of a reasonable inference which would authorize recovery, and are also susceptible of a reasonable inference to the contrary, a jury question is presented. Voelker v. Combined Ins. Co. of America, Fla.1954, 73 So.2d 403, 406; Shepherd v. Finer Foods, Inc., Fla.1964, 165 So.2d 750, 754, and Scott v. Midyette-Moor, Inc., Fla.App.1969, 221 So.2d 178, 181.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment for General Tire & Rubber Company is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
REED, C. J., and OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Newsome v. ST. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 350 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)…facts of the instant case, we hold that the proof adduced by appellant clearly presents a jury question. Where there is any evidence upon which a jury could lawfully find for the movant’s adversary, a verdict should not be directed. Jones v. Smith, 279 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); See Tropeano v. Matthews, 281 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). The evidence falls within this standard. The final judgment is set aside and the case is remanded for a new trial consistent with this opinion. GRIMES, Acting C. J.…
-
Tropeano v. Matthews, 281 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…ew of the record we are of the opinion that there was sufficient evidence on which the jury could have lawfully found for the plaintiff, and, therefore, the verdict should not have been directed. Jones v. Smith etc., Fourth District Court of Appeal, 279 So. 2d 343, opinion filed June 20, 1973; see also Zimmerman v. Langlais, Fla.App.1971, 248 So. 2d 694; and 32 Fla.Jur. Trial § 93. The final judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings. Reversed. OWEN, C. J., and CROSS and MAGER, JJ.,…
Authorities Cited
- Voelker v. Combined Ins. Co. of Am., 73 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 1954)
- Shepherd v. Finer Foods, Inc., 165 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 1964)
- Leola Scott v. Midyette-Moor, Inc., 221 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)