FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
LILLIE MAE BRITT, ETC., ET AL., 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.
Florida East Coast Railway Company appealed a wrongful death judgment for a child struck by a train at a railway crossing. The court affirmed the judgment, rejecting the railway's arguments that the trial court erred in denying its motion for directed verdict, motion for new trial, failure to submit comparative negligence interrogatories, and denial of post-trial jury interviews.
The trial court correctly denied all of the railway's motions. The evidence presented could lawfully support a jury verdict for the plaintiff despite evidence supporting a verdict for the railway. The railway's failure to request special interrogatories on comparative negligence meant the trial court did not abuse its discretion in not submitting them. While post-trial jury interviews would have been proper, their denial was not reversible error under the circumstances.
[1] A motion for directed verdict should be denied if there is any evidence upon which a jury could lawfully find for the plaintiff.
[2] A trial court correctly denies a motion for a new trial if the jury could lawfully have reached a contrary conclusion to the evidence presented.
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“In the present case we cannot say that there was no evidence upon which the jury could lawfully find for the plaintiff.”
Establishes the proper standard for reviewing a motion for directed verdict—the court should not overturn if any evidence supports the plaintiff's position.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA child was struck and killed by a train operated by Florida East Coast Railway Company at a railway crossing. At trial, evidence was presented regard…
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.
Florida East Coast Railway Company, the defendant below, appeals from a judgment entered against it for the wrongful death of a child struck by a train at a railway crossing.
The Railway first contends that the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict in its favor. From our review of the voluminous record in this case, it appears that the evidence would support a verdict in favor of the Railway. However this is not the standard by which a motion for directed verdict is judged. Badgen v. Brady, 103 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958). In the present case we cannot say that there was no evidence upon which the jury could lawfully find for the plaintiff. Brookbank v. Mathieu, 152 So. 2d 526 (Fla.3d DCA 1963). We hold that the trial court correctly denied the Railway’s motion for directed verdict.
Next, the Railway contends that the trial court erred in not granting its motion for new trial or alternatively its motion for entry of a remittitur because of the clear and convincing evidence of negligence on the part of the plaintiff’s decedent. Again although the evidence would support a finding that the deceased child was negligent, we cannot say that the jury could not lawfully have reached a contrary conclusion. We hold that the trial court correctly denied the Railway’s motion for new trial.
The Railway also contends that the trial court erred in failing to submit special jury interrogatories on the question of comparative negligence. It does not appear from the record that the Railway requested submission of special jury interrogatories on the percentage of fault between the Railway and plaintiff’s decedent. In the absence of such a request we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion. Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Lawrence, 328 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
Lastly, the Railway contends that the trial court erred in refusing to permit its counsel to interview the members of the jury after the trial. While it would have been proper for the trial judge to have allowed an interview with the discharged jurors, we cannot say that his denial of the motion under the circumstances of this case constituted reversible error. Etheridge v. Firemen’s Fund Insurance Co., 319 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).
AFFIRMED.
DOWNEY and ALDERMAN, JJ„ and PARHAM, HARRY C., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Matthews v. Page, 354 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)…ry to make up the minimum payments for March and April. Because there was evidence upon which the jury could lawfully have found for the plaintiff, the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant. Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Britt, 347 So. 2d 122 (Fla.4th DCA 1977). REVERSED and REMANDED. ANSTEAD, J., and GREEN, OLIVER L., Associate Judge, concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Budgen v. Brady, 103 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Brookbank v. Mathieu, 152 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Etheridge v. Firemen's Fund Ins. Co. & Plymouth Van Lines, Inc., 319 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Lawrence, 328 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)