DOROTHY J. WILFORK, APPELLANT,
v.
ASSOCIATED GROCERS OF FLORIDA, INC., AND TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
Appellant appeals from a directed verdict granted to defendants in a negligence case arising from an automobile accident. The court reversed, holding that the trial judge erred in directing a verdict based solely on plaintiff's opening statement without allowing the plaintiff to present her case to the jury.
The court held that the trial judge erred in directing the verdict. Even if such a procedure were proper as a matter of law, the evidence presented—including appellant's opening statement and deposition—when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, would permit a jury to find that appellees' stationary tractor trailer was the proximate cause of the accident.
[1] A directed verdict granted solely upon a plaintiff's opening statement, without allowing the plaintiff to present her case to the jury, is improper.
[2] A directed verdict may not be granted if, viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, a jury could reasonably…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Though, as a matter of law, it is not prima facie error to direct a verdict in favor of a defendant prior to the completion of the plaintiff's case, Floyd v. Ott, 221 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969), we do not believe such practice is proper. This is especially true when the direction of the verdict is based solely upon a plaintiff's opening statement.”
Establishes the court's holding that while not per se error, directing a verdict before plaintiff presents evidence is improper, particularly when based only on opening statement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn May 7, 1974, appellant was injured in an intersection automobile accident when her car collided with a vehicle driven by Denise Brown. Appellant al…
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 Proximate Cause cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, plaintiff below, appeals from a final judgment, dated September 22, 1975, which granted appellees’, defendants below, motion for directed verdict and from an order denying appellant’s motion for new trial.
On May 7, 1974, appellant was injured in an intersectional automobile accident when the car which she was driving collided with an automobile driven by one Denise Brown.1 The accident allegedly occurred as a result of appellee’s negligence in parking its tractor trailer at one of the entrances to the intersection, thereby blocking appellant’s view as to oncoming traffic.
Extensive discovery was taken by appellant and the cause proceeded to trial. After the jury had been selected, the trial judge held a “pretrial” conference with the respective attorneys in his chambers. As per the trial judge’s request, appellant’s counsel thereupon presented what amounted to his opening statement. At the conclusion of said remarks, the court directed a verdict for appellees. Final judgment was thereafter entered pursuant to the directed verdict and a subsequent motion for new trial was denied. This appeal follows.
It is appellant’s contention that the trial judge erred in directing the verdict against her after opening statement, without allowing her to present her case before the jury. We agree.
Though, as a matter of law, it is not prima facie error to direct a verdict in favor of a defendant prior to the completion of the plaintiff’s case, Floyd v. Ott, 221 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969), we do not believe such practice is proper. This is especially true when the direction of the verdict is based solely upon a plaintiff’s opening statement. Akdoruk v. Advanced Jet Systems, Inc., 296 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); see also Southern Wood Industries v. Florida Carolina Lumber Company, 84 So. 2d 589 (Fla.1956).
Even assuming the above procedure was proper, after reviewing the quasi-opening statement of appellant’s counsel in conjunction with the deposition of appellant, we cannot say that, viewing the evidence and all inferences reasonably drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-mov ing party, Levine v. Frank, 311 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), a jury could not have reasonably found that, though appellees’ tractor trailer was stationary, said vehicle was nevertheless the proximate cause of the ensuing accident. See McCabe v. Watson, 225 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969).
In light of the above, and after having considered the record, briefs and arguments of counsel, we conclude that the trial judge erred in directing a verdict in favor of appellees. Therefore, for the reasons stated and upon the authorities cited, the judgment appealed is reversed and remanded with directions to grant appellant a trial on the merits.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
. Prior to trial, appellant took a voluntary dismissal as to Ms. Brown and her insurance carrier.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sheldon Greene & Assocs., Inc. v. Williams Island Assocs., 550 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…of his evidence. Porro v. Franco, 448 So. 2d 614, 615 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), and cases cited therein; accord Dodge v. Weiss, 191 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966); Sapp v. Redding, 178 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965). But cfi Wilfork v. Associated Grocers, 343 So. 2d 84, 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (“Though, as a matter of law, it is not prima facie error to direct a verdict in favor of a defendant prior to the completion of the plaintiff’s case, Floyd v. Ott, 221 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969), we do not believe such pra…
-
Lowd v. CAL Kovens Constr. Corp. & Bradley Kovens, 546 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…cle in violation of a traffic regulation, even though the vehicle never came into contact with the pedestrian, could have proximately caused the accident, and was thus a question for the jury. See also Wilfork v. Associated Grocers of Florida, Inc., 343 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (jury could reasonably find that defendant’s parking of tractor trailer which blocked plaintiff’s view was proximate cause of plaintiff’s collision with oncoming automobile; no contact between trailer and defendant’s car). Simila…
-
Schurr v. Royal Globe Ins. Co., 353 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)…is exceptional practice. We believe the trial judge should not have attempted to determine this close case on liability before he had a chance to hear all the testimony that appellant had to offer. See Wilfork v. Associated Grocers of Florida, Inc., 343 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). REVERSED. BOARDMAN, C. J., and HOBSON and GRIMES, JJ., concur.…
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
- McCABE v. Watson, 225 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- S. Wood Indus., Inc. v. Fla. Carolina Lumber Co., 84 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 1956)
- Floyd v. OTT, 221 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Levine v. Frank, 311 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Yilmaz M. Akdoruk & Faye H. Akdoruk t/a Akdoruk & Assocs. v. Advanced JET Sys., Inc., 296 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Charles M. Scissors et ux. v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 311 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)