GEORGE C. PALMER
v.
WILLIAM W. MCCREADY, H. V. GODWIN AND SARA WOLF
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 Florida Supreme Court reversed a directed verdict for the defendant in a personal injury and property damage case arising from a car collision. The court found that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of the defendant's negligence to warrant a jury trial.
Yes, the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of the defendant's negligence to require the issues to be determined by a jury.
“At the close of plaintiff's testimony the trial judge on motion directed a verdict in favor of the defendant.”
Describes the procedural event that led to the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff sued for damages resulting from an automobile collision, alleging personal injuries and property damage. At the close of the plaintiff's…
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 Automobile Collision cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal brings for review judgment on directed verdict in favor of defendant in a suit wherein plaintiff claimed damages for personal injuries and property damage in an automobile collision.
At the close of plaintiff’s testimony the trial judge on motion directed a verdict in favor of the defendant.
Having considered the transcript of the record, it is our opinion that the directing of the verdict in favor of defendant was error. There was sufficient evidence of negligence resulting in injury to plaintiff on the part of defendant in the operation of an automobile on the public highway to require the issues to be presented to a jury for determination, under the rule as stated by us in Moore v. Dietrich, 133 Fla. 809, 183 Sou. 2, and as reaffirmed by us in the recent case of Williams v. Sauls, 151 Fla. 270, 9 Sou. (2nd) 369.
Therefore, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
So ordered.
BROWN, ,C. J., WHITFIELD, BUFORD and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. Sauls, 151 Fla. 270 (Fla. 1942)
- Ulmer Moore v. Diethrich, 133 Fla. 809 (Fla. 1938)
- Fairbanks v. Robertson, 151 Fla. 224 (Fla. 1942)