HUGH C. GOFF, APPELLANT,
v.
MIAMI TRANSIT COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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 negligence case arising from a bus-automobile collision, the Florida Supreme Court reversed a directed verdict for the defendant, holding that the trial court improperly removed the case from the jury when the plaintiff's evidence, including diagrams and photographs, raised factual questions for jury determination.
The trial court erred in granting the directed verdict. The plaintiff's evidence, including oral testimony and physical evidence such as diagrams and photographs, raised questions of fact regarding negligence that should have been submitted to the jury for determination, not resolved by the trial court.
“Diagrams and photographs, in fact physical evidence, generally may speak so loud that one will not hear the witnesses.”
Illustrates the court's recognition that physical evidence can be highly probative and requires jury evaluation rather than judicial determination.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn April 5, 1950, at approximately 6 P.M., a collision occurred at the intersection of N.W. 22nd Avenue and 79th Street in Miami. The traffic signal w…
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 Jury Question cases and more on FLexlaw
[*637] TERRELL, Justice.
This is our second consideration of this case. Miami Transit Company v. Goff, Fla., 66 So. 2d 487. When the mandate went down from the first appeal a new trial was held, at the conclusion of plaintiffs case defendant moved for a directed verdict which was granted, and final judgment was entered for defendant. This appeal is from the judgment so entered.
The only point for determination is whether or not the trial court committed error in granting the motion for directed verdict in favor of defendant at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s case.
The answer to this question turns on that of whether or not plaintiff’s evidence created an issue for the jury. The question in the case is whether or not defendant operated its bus in such a negligent and careless manner as to collide with an automobile owned and operated by the plaintiff, causing him serious injury. The collision took place at the intersection of N. W. 22nd Avenue and 79th Street in Miami. There was a plea of contributory negligence and assumption of risk. The accident took place about 6 P. M. April 5, 1950, the traffic signal at the intersection was not working, it had been raining hard all day, visibility was not exceeding 100 to 200 feet, the plaintiff was traveling easterly on the south half of 79th Street, an east-west street divided by an 18 foot parkway, the street was asphalt and slippery when wet, a fact well-known to plaintiff.
The bus was being operated in a westerly direction on 79th Street. When it arrived at the intersection, normally controlled by a traffic light, the bus driver made a left hand turn, intending to proceed south on 22nd Avenue. The bus was about 25 feet long, had no passengers at the time, it was painted white, the headlights were on and when it arrived at the intersection it made a left hand turn on driver’s signal. When the front end of the bus cleared the south curb line of the intersection the plaintiff’s oncoming car struck the extreme right rear corner of the bus. The impact occurred near the center of the south half of 79th Street, the bus had completed the turn and had headed south. The plaintiff was running about 30 miles per hour, did not slacken his speed, the bus was pushed about 90 degrees from its course by the impact. The evidence was that of the plaintiff and two witnesses, various engineers’ diagrams and photographs.
Diagrams and photographs, in fact physical evidence, generally may speak so loud that one will not hear the witnesses. We have examined the oral and the physical'evidence in this case and we cannot escape the conclusion that the trial court acted too hastily in taking the case from the jury. Appraisal of the weight of the evidence is always a jury question and in this case the oral and physical evidence required deductions from diagrams, photographs and other evidence, that should have been resolved by the jury instead of the court.
The judgment appealed from is accordingly reversed and a new trial awarded.
Reversed.
MATHEWS, C. J., and THOMAS, HOBSON and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bess v. 17545 Collins Ave., Inc., 98 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1957)…n might justifiably make different inferences and deductions and reach different conclusions from these photographs. Where this appears it is the- province of the jury to make such deductions and inferences. See Goff v. Miami Transit Co., Fla. 1955, 77 So. 2d 636. In such cases it cannot be said that there is no genuine issue of material fact to be determined. Nor is the fact that in the photographs the condition appears to be an obvious one, or visible, as stated by the trial judge, sufficient as a matter…
-
Hannewacker v. City OF Jacksonville Beach, 419 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1982)…nd and apply such evidence. Id. at 538, 10 So. at 113. See also City of Miami v. McCorkle, 145 Fla. 109, 199 So. 575 (1940). Since Adams this Court has permitted inferences and deductions to be drawn from photographs. In Goff v. Miami Transit Co., 77 So. 2d 636 (Fla.1955), the plaintiff was injured in an automobile collision. The trial judge entered a directed verdict for the defendant and Goff appealed. This Court reversed, stating: Diagrams and photographs, in fact physical evidence, generally may speak…1 / 2
-
Garris v. Robeison, 146 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)…ifted and it becomes the duty of the plaintiff to remove such presumption. Greiper v. Coburn, 1939, 139 Fla. 293, 190 So. 902. In considering the question both the oral and physical evidence must be examined. Goff v. Miami Transit Company, Fla.1955, 77 So. 2d 636. And where the case is close on issues of negligence, doubt should always be resolved in favor of a jury trial. Foster v. Gulfstream Press, Inc., Fla.App.1961, 134 So. 2d 270. Where the evidence fully'- makes out the plaintiff’s case, and there is n…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Miami Transit Co. v. Goff, 66 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 1953)