SELLEY
v.
BENEDICT
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 this personal injury appeal, the Florida Supreme Court reversed a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, with a 4-2 split on the court. The majority held that the evidence did not support the jury's verdict, while the dissent believed the question was properly left to the jury.
The judgment in favor of the plaintiff must be reversed because the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict on the material points of the case.
“This appeal is from a final judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an action for personal injuries.”
Establishes the nature of the case and that plaintiff prevailed in the lower court
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved a personal injury action. The record shows that evidence on every material point was controverted. The specific facts underlying the…
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 Appellate Review Of Jury Verdicts cases and more on FLexlaw
TERRELL, Justice.
This appeal is from a final judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an action for personal injuries. The record has been examined and the evidence on every material point was controverted. We do not see that a discussion of it would serve any useful purpose. Mr. Chief Justice SEBRING, Mr. Justice ROBERTS, Mr. Justice MATHEWS and Mr. Associate Justice WHITE are óf the view that the judgment should be reversed. They cite Stiles v. Munson S. S. Lines, D.C., 40 F. 2d 276; The America, D.C., 35 F.Supp. 413; The Nereid, D.C., 40 F.Supp. 736; The S. S. Sexpapinto, D.C., 45 F.Supp. 255 and Morgan v. Oceanic Steam Nav. Co., 130 Misc. 570, 224 N.Y.S. 420 as supporting authority.
Mr. Justice TERRELL and Mr. Justice DREW are of the view that the question was one for the jury and that their verdict finds substantial supporting evidence in the record.
It results that the judgment must be and is hereby reversed.
Reversed.
SEBRING, C. J., and ROBERTS and MATHEWS, JJ., and WHITE, Associate Justice, concur. THOMAS, J., hot participating.