MARCEL NOVITCH, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL NOVITCH, AND OF MARY NOVITCH, THE WIDOW OF THE LATE MICHAEL NOVITCH, APPELLANT,
v.
NU WAY AUTO SERVICE AND FRANKLIN SETH DEBOER, 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.
This case concerns the ownership of securities held jointly by a married couple, where the husband's estate claimed a one-half interest after his death and the wife claimed sole ownership.
The appellate court reversed the successor judge's decision, holding that the interpretation of the securities' titling (joint tenancy with right of survivorship) determined ownership, not the successor judge's authority to rehear the case.
[1] A directed verdict for the defendant is proper at the conclusion of the plaintiff's case when the plaintiff's evidence fails to establish a breach of duty by the defendan…
[2] The fact of an injury alone is insufficient to establish liability; the injury must be shown to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant.
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 intelligenceFollowing a marriage dissolution, the husband died before further orders were made. His estate administrator petitioned for a one-half interest in joi…
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 Directed Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
[*204] PER CURIAM.
By this appeal, we are called upon to review the correctness of an order directing a verdict in favor of the defendant at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s case.
Plaintiff’s evidence established that her decedent was critically injured in an automobile accident. But, beyond that, the evidence demonstrated that the defendant-driver was operating his motor vehicle in a normal manner and not violating any statutes or ordinances. There was absolutely no proof of a breach of duty by the defendant-driver. We therefore affirm. See: Ward v. Everett, 148 Fla. 173, 3 So. 2d 879, wherein the late Justice Terrell, speaking for the Supreme Court of Florida, said:
“Plaintiff in error was struck by an automobile and seriously injured. He brought this action to recover damages for personal injuries. At the conclusion of the testimony the court indicated that a motion for directed verdict in favor of the defendant would be granted whereupon plaintiff moved a nonsuit which was allowed and from which writ of error was taken.
“The only question presented is whether or not the evidence of negligence was such that it should have gone to the jury to determine that point.
“[1,2] The injury was shown but the test of whether damages should be awarded is not the fact of injury but the fact of whose negligence caused the injury. To entitle plaintiff to recover, the injury must have been caused by the negligence of the operator of the defendant’s automobile. Applying this test to the case at bar, we find no reason to impute negligence to the defendant. The driver of the car appears to have been driving carefully, was observing the rules of the road, and was taking all the precautions required of him. From the evidence adduced, there was no theory under which she could be held responsible so the judgment is affirmed.
“Affirmed.”
See, also: Stanley v. Powers, 125 Fla. 322, 169 So. 861; Stolmaker v. Bowerman, Fla.App.1958, 100 So. 2d 659; Green v. Loudermilk, Fla.App. 1962, 146 So. 2d 601.
Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the final judgment based upon the directed verdict be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Stanley v. Powers, 125 Fla. 322 (Fla. 1936)
- Stolmaker v. Bowerman, 100 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Green v. Loudermilk, 146 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Ward v. Mrs. Clara. M. Everett, 148 Fla. 173 (Fla. 1941)