RENATE HALL AND STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
MARIA RICARDO, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, JOSE RICARDO, AND JOSE RICARDO, INDIVIDUALLY, 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 involves an appeal by dog owners and their insurer after a trial court granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict in a dog bite case. The appellate court reversed this decision, finding the trial court improperly granted the motion because the plaintiffs had not first moved for a directed verdict.
No, the trial court's order granting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict was improper. Such a judgment is a deferred ruling on a motion for a directed verdict, and the plaintiffs failed to make the prerequisite motion for a directed verdict.
[1] A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is procedurally equivalent to a deferred ruling on a motion for directed verdict.
[2] A trial court cannot grant a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict if the moving party failed to move for a directed verdict at the close of all evidence.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In this appeal we are called upon to make a determination as to the propriety of the judgment notwithstanding the verdict.”
Identifies the central issue on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs sued dog owners for a dog bite. A jury returned a verdict for the defendants. The plaintiffs then moved for a judgment notwithstanding 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 Motion For Directed Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendants, dog owner Renate Hall and her insurer, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, from an order granting the motion of the plaintiffs for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and an order to proceed to trial on the issue of damages only, following a verdict for the defendants in a dog bite case. In this appeal we are called upon to make a determination as to the propriety of the judgment notwithstanding the verdict. At the outset, we note that under the present practice in Florida there is no motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. This situation is governed by Rule 1.480, RCP, under which the proper title for the motion is “Motion For Judgment In Accordance With Motion For Directed Verdict.” DeMendoza v. Board of County Commissioners, Fla.App.1969, 221 So. 2d 797. Mislabeling, however, does not constitute error where the substance of the motion is in accordance with the rules. DeMendoza, supra. On the authority of McCabe v. Watson, Fla.App.1969, 225 So. 2d 346, we will treat the judgment notwithstanding the verdict in the instant case as a judgment in accordance with motion for directed verdict. Such a judgment, in substance and practical effect, is tantamount to a deferred ruling on a motion for directed verdict. Smith v. Peninsular Insurance Company, Fla.App.1966, 181 So. 2d 212; McCabe v. Watson, supra; Whitman v. Red Top Sedan Service, Inc., Fla.App. 1969, 218 So. 2d 213; Cheek v. Long, Fla.App.1970, 235 So. 2d 349.
Having carefully reviewed the record, we find that the plaintiffs failed to move for a directed verdict at the close of all of the evidence. It was improper for the trial court to grant the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict since there was no motion for directed verdict on which ruling was deferred.
Therefore, the judgment notwithstanding the verdict and the order of trial on the issue of damages are reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to reinstate both the verdict and the judgment which was entered on the verdict.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Greene v. Flewelling, 366 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)…trial motion for judgment in accordance with a previous motion for directed verdict are the same as those governing a motion for a directed verdict at the close of the evidence. [*780] Hendricks v. Dailey, 208 So. 2d 101 (Fla.1968); Hall v. Ricardo, 331 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). A trial court is authorized to grant such a motion only if there is no evidence or reasonable inferences to support the nonmoving party’s position. Stirling v. Sapp, 229 So. 2d 850 (Fla.1969); Brown v. Walker, 306 So. 2d 209 (Fla…
-
Holland v. Anheuser Busch, Inc., 643 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…islabeled its motion to dismiss, the motion was substantively insufficient as a motion for summary judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 to enable the trial court to dismiss Holland’s amended complaint with prejudice. Hall v. Ricardo, 331 So. 2d 375, 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (“Mislabeling ... does not constitute error where the substance of the motion is in accordance with the rules.”) (emphasis added). If the trial court relied on the first affidavit, such reliance was inappropriate since the af…
-
Sundale Assocs., Ltd. v. Se. Bank, N.A., 471 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…gnoring the trial judge’s broad hint that it do so, did not move for a directed verdict at the conclusion of all of the evidence, as is required to preserve the point. 6551 Collins Avenue Corp. v. Millen, 104 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 1958); Hall v. Ricardo, 331 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Moreover, the supposed “exception” to this rule which may arise when there is a “total lack of evidence” to support the verdict, Fee, Parker & Lloyd, P.A. v. Sullivan, 379 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), cert. denied, 388 So. 2d…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McCABE v. Watson, 225 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Smith v. Peninsular Ins. Co., 181 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)
- Whitman v. RED TOP Sedan Serv., Inc., 218 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- de Mendoza v. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs, 221 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Cheek v. Long, 235 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)