POVIA ET AL.
v.
MELVIN
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 affirmed a jury verdict and judgment for the plaintiff who lost his arm in a highway collision between a truck and his car. The court held that the jury's factual findings regarding which vehicle crossed the center line and the plaintiff's lack of contributory negligence were supported by evidence and properly submitted to the jury.
The jury's verdict in favor of the plaintiff was properly submitted and resolved, and the plaintiff's testimony about not seeing the truck until it was 100 feet away does not constitute contributory negligence as a matter of law sufficient to bar his recovery.
“this court is not authorized to substitute its judgment for that of the jury and the trial court on disputed questions of fact”
Establishes the standard of review limiting appellate court authority to overturn jury verdicts on factual matters
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 was driving his car in one direction on a highway while the defendants' employee was driving a truck in the opposite direction. As both …
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
ROBERTS, Chief Justice.
The defendants have appealed from a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff entered in proceedings instituted against them in the court below by plaintiff to recover for personal injuries sustained by him in a highway accident involving a truck driven by the defendants’ employee and a car driven by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff sustained injury to his arm, requiring its amputation, when the truck “side-swiped” the car as the vehicles, proceeding in opposite directions, were negotiating a curve on the highway. The case turns on the question of which of the vehicles had crossed over the center line of the highway, thus encroaching upon the other lane of traffic; and, assuming that the truck was the encroaching vehicle, a subsidiary question of whether the plaintiff contributed to his own injury by failing to use proper care in observing the approach of oncoming vehicles.
The evidence was in sharp conflict on the question of which vehicle was on the wrong side of the road at the time of the accident. No authorities need be cited for the proposition that this court is not authorized to substitute its judgment for that of the jury and the trial court on disputed questions of fact. Likewise, the question of the credibility of the witnesses, as well as the effect or weight to be given to the evidence, is for the jury to determine. Loftin v. Joyner, Fla., 60 So. 2d 154.
Nor do we think the fact that the plaintiff testified that he was “watching the inside curve, watching the grass” as he approached the curve and did not notice the truck until it was about 100 feet distant, constitutes such contributory negligence, as a matter of law, as to bar his recovery. The defendants do not here complain of the manner in which the question of the plaintiff’s contributory negligence was submitted to the jury by the trial judge, and this factual question was resolved by the jury against them.
No error having been shown, the judgment appealed from should be and it is hereby
Affirmed.
TERRELL, SEBRING and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
The Hollywood Beach Hotel Co. v. The City OF Hollywood, 329 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1976)…ach Hotel, 283 So. 2d 867 (Fla.App. 4th 1973). . 265 So. 2d 43 (Fla.1972). . 251 So. 2d 665 (Fla.1971). e. g. First Atlantic National Bank v. Cobbett, 82 So. 2d 870 (Fla.1955) ; In Re Baldridge’s Estate, 74 So. 2d 658 (Fla.1954) ; Povia v. Melvin, 66 So. 2d 494 (Fla.1953) ; Ford Motor Co. v. Waters, 273 So. 2d 96 (Fla.App. 3d 1973) ; Nixon Construction Co. v. Dover, 218 So. 2d 458 (Fla.App. 1st 1969) ; St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Conley, 201 So. 2d 618 (Fla.App. 4th 1967) ; 2 Fla.Jur. Appeals, § 346 (1963…
-
Carolina Lumber Co. v. Daniel, 97 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957)…it is hereby affirmed. STURGIS, C. J., and TAYLOR, A. J„ concur. . Harmon v. Harmon, Fla.1949, 40 So. 2d 209. . E. g., Eldridge v. Eldridge, 153 Fla. 873, 16 So. 2d 163; Meola v. Sparks, 138 Fla. 364, 189 So. 408. . E. g., Povia v. Melvin, Fla., 66 So. 2d 494; Exchange Nat. Bank of Winter Haven v. Smith, 148 Fla. 473, 4 So. 2d 675. . Loew v. Friedman, Fla.1955, 80 So. 2d 672.…
-
F.T. Landry v. Hornstein, 462 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…Hornstein as a tenant and would rent the premises directly to Moreno. Reconciliation of conflicting testimony that negotiations ceased for other reasons rested upon a credibility determination within the province of the factfinder. Povia v. Melvin, 66 So. 2d 494 (Fla.1953); S. Kornreich & Sons, Inc. v. Titan Agencies, Inc., 423 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Hunt v. Palm Springs General Hospital, Inc., 352 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Where substantial evidence supports a jury determination, an appellate…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence