CRAIN & CROUSE, INC., ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
PALM BAY TOWERS CORPORATION, RESPONDENT
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.
An appellate court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact by reweighing evidence.
The district court of appeal reviewed a trial court's decision, finding negligence on the part of Crain & Crouse. The petitioner argued the district c…
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 Reweighing Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
ENGLAND, Justice.
By petition for a writ of certiorari, we are requested to review a decision of the Third District Court of Appeal reported at 303 So. 2d 380. Our jurisdiction is invoked on the basis of direct conflict between the district court’s decision and that in Exchange Bank v. Florida Nat’l Bank, 292 So. 2d 361 (Fla.1974), as well as other cases.
Petitioner suggests that the district court below substituted its judgment as to factual matters for the findings made at trial by the trier of fact.1 Exchange Bank, and the other cases cited for conflict, stand for the fundamental proposition that an appellate court is not free to substitute its judgment for the trier of fact, or to weigh evidence and reach a different conclusion from that reached at trial. The decision below indicates on its face that, by aggregating sufficient facts from the record to establish the negligence of Crain & Crouse, the district court reweighed the evidence and substituted its judgment for that of the trial judge.2 The decision below is in conflict with Exchange Bank and must be quashed. The district court is directed to reinstate the judgment of the trial court as to the negligence of Crain & Crouse.
ADKINS, C. J., and OVERTON, SUNDBERG and HATCHETT, JJ., concur. . In this case, the trial judge sat as the trier of facts.
. “Our departure in reasoning from the trial court travels upon the latter’s conclusion that the engineers’ activity in the supervision and inspection of the jobsite construction for possible deficiencies in the redesign did not amount to a neglect of its professional responsibility to the owner. We think the owner has sufficiently proven negligence, entitling it to recover damages, if any.” 303 So. 2d at 384.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sheldon Greene & Assocs., Inc. v. Rosinda Invs., N.V., 475 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…support the final judgment under review, and the court exceeds its authority in setting it aside. I would affirm. . Delgado v. Strong, 360 So. 2d 73 (Fla.1978); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976); Crain & Crouse, Inc. v. Palm Bay Towers Corp., 326 So. 2d 182 (Fla.1976); Turner v. Lorber, 360 So. 2d 101, 103-04 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Cuna Mut. Ins. Society v. Adamides, 334 So. 2d 75, 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); see Castille v. Starr, 376 So. 2d 935, 936 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Heard v. Mathis, 344 So. 2d 651, 654-5…
-
Early v. Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc., 354 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1977)…s cited by petitioner to the effect that an appellate court is not free to substitute its judgment for the trier of fact or to reweigh the evidence and reach a different conclusion than the trial court, Crane & Crouse, Inc. v. Palm Bay Towers Corp., 326 So. 2d 182 (Fla.1976), and to the effect that the existence or nonexistence of malice where the facts are controverted and there is evidence on the subject is a jury question. Coogler v. Rhodes, 38 Fla. 240, 21 So. 109 (1897), Montgomery v. Knox, 23 Fla. 595,…
-
Gordon v. Jeri Lee Gordon, 335 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…scretion or are patently erroneous on the record. The appellant carries the responsibility of clearly demonstrating such error.” (Emphasis added) The Supreme Court recently reemphasized this problem in Crain & Crouse, Inc. v. Palm Bay Towers Corp., 326 So. 2d 182 (1976), where it reversed a District Court [*324] for reweighing the evidence and substituting its judgment for that of the trial court. Our action here today, however, is based upon both an absence of evidence to support the award as well as an ap…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Exch. Bank OF ST. Augustine v. The Fla. Nat'l Bank OF Jacksonville, 292 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 1974)
- Firestone Rubber Co. v. Parrish, 303 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Palm BAY Towers Corp. v. Crain & Crouse, Inc., 303 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Palm BAY Towers Corp. v. Crain & Crouse, Inc., 326 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)