HARRY E. SCHUMACHER AND MARIE CAROLINE SCHUMACHER, APPELLANTS,
v.
FRED HANS PASSOW, 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.
The Schumachers appealed a jury verdict in favor of defendant Passow in a car accident negligence case. This was the second appeal after the Florida Supreme Court had previously reversed and remanded for a new trial. The court affirmed the second jury verdict for the defendant, finding sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding and refusing to order a third trial.
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support submission to the jury and that the verdict should be affirmed. The court declined to order a third trial, finding that no useful purpose would be served by further proceedings.
“While the evidence on this point adduced at the second trial varies little from that presented at the first trial, we think there was sufficient evidence to go to the jury, and that no useful purpose would be served by submitting the cause to a jury for the third time.”
The court's rationale for affirming the second verdict and declining to order a third trial despite the plaintiffs' arguments.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff wife was injured in a car collision at a street intersection with the defendant's vehicle. The case was tried twice before a jury. At bo…
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 Manifest Weight Of The Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
ROBERTS, Justice.
Plaintiffs, appellants here, sued to recover damages for injuries suffered by the plaintiff wife when the car she was driving collided at a street intersection with that of defendant, appellee here. The first trial of the cause resulted in a jury verdict and judgment in favor of defendant, 'but this court reversed the judgment and remanded the cause for a new trial (see Schumacher et al. v. Passow, Fla., 68 So. 2d 899 for reasons) under the authority of Tampa Water Works Co. v. Mugge, 60 Fla. 263, 53 So. 943; Richbourg v. Hilton, Fla., 56 So. 2d 539; and Schneider v. Cohan, Fla., 59 So. 2d 644.
The cause was tried before a jury a second time, and the plaintiffs were again unsuccessful in persuading that body that the defendant’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident. Their motion for new trial was denied, and this appeal followed.
On this appeal, it is again contended that the verdict of the jury is against the manifest weight of the evidence, and also that the trial judge erred in charging the jury on the law of contributory negligence. While the evidence on this point adduced at the second trial varies little from that presented at the first trial, we think there was sufficient evidence to go to the jury, and that no useful purpose would be served by submitting the cause to a jury for the third time.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed from should be and it is hereby
Affirmed.
DREW, C. J., and THOMAS and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Tampa Water Works Co. v. Mugge, 60 Fla. 263 (Fla. 1910)
- Schumacher v. Passow, 68 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 1953)