THOMAS FIERSTOS, APPELLANT,
v.
WALTER S. CULLUM, JOAN C. CULLUM, HIS WIFE, AND THE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE CO., 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.
A tenant sued his landlord for negligence over an alleged failure to maintain a common stairway safely. The jury found the landlord solely negligent and awarded $7,000 in damages, but the trial court entered judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the landlord. The appellate court reversed, finding the trial court erred in substituting its judgment for the jury's on credibility and reasonableness questions.
The trial court erred in entering judgment notwithstanding the jury verdict. Where competent evidence exists and credibility of witnesses, weight of evidence, and reasonableness of parties' actions are in dispute, these matters are within the province of the jury, and the trial court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the jury.
[1] A trial court errs in entering a judgment notwithstanding the jury verdict when there is competent evidence before the jury which it was their prerogative to believe.
[2] The credibility of witnesses, the weight to be given evidence, and the reasonableness of parties' actions are within the province of the jury.
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“There was competent evidence before the jury which it was their prerogative to believe. Credibility of the witnesses, the weight to be given the evidence and whether the actions of the parties were reasonable were all distinctly within the province of the jury.”
Establishes that matters of witness credibility and reasonableness are for the jury, not the trial court, and supports reversal of the judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe tenant testified he fell on an interior stairway while descending, catching his foot on a loose black antenna wire running under a step lip. He cl…
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 Common Areas cases and more on FLexlaw
OTT, Judge.
This was a negligence action by a tenant against his landlord arising out of the alleged failure of the landlord to exercise reasonable care in the maintenance and repair of a common stairway.
The case went to the jury on instructions as to the standard of care, comparative negligence and special verdict that were most favorable to the defendant.
The jury returned its special verdict finding the landlord solely negligent and awarding the tenant $7,000 in damages.
Upon the landlord’s motion the trial court entered judgment for the landlord, notwithstanding the jury verdict.
The evidence in the case was in direct-conflict. Plaintiff/appellant testified that he had fallen while descending an interior stairway in the apartment building in which he lived; that he caught his foot on a loose antenna wire — black in color — which ran just under the lip of a step; that the stairway was reasonably dark because the only light in the vicinity was blocked by a protruding porch; that he had previously noted the loose wire, reattached it under the stair lip, informed the landlord thereof and requested that he correct the condition.
The landlord, on the other hand, testified that he inspected the premises daily and had never seen any such wire; flatly denied that the appellant had ever complained about any loose wire running across the stairway or requested any repair. There was competent evidence before the jury which it was their prerogative to believe. Credibility of the witnesses, the weight to be given the evidence and whether the actions of the parties were reasonable were all distinctly within the province of the jury. Under the circumstances the trial court erred in substituting its judgment for that of the jury. See Rosenfelder v. Huttoe, 66 So. 2d 226 (Fla.1953); Dixon v. Thompson, 217 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969).
We therefore reverse the trial court, order the judgment set aside and direct that judgment be entered on the jury verdict. Having so determined it is unnecessary to consider the remaining point on this appeal.
Reversed and Remanded.
McNULTY, Acting C. J., and RYDER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. Brown, 525 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 1988)…, it appears that the court is uncertain with respect to whether a trial judge can order a new trial when the credibility of witnesses is at issue. Clearly, it is a jury function to evaluate the credibility of any given witness. Fierstos v. Cullum, 351 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Moreover, the trial judge should refrain from acting as an additional juror. Laskey v. Smith, 239 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1970). Nevertheless, the trial judge can and should grant a new trial if the manifest weight of the evidence is cont…
Authorities Cited
- Rosenfelder v. Huttoe, 66 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 1953)
- Hewrett F. Dixon and Gerri Dozier Dixon v. Joice M. Thompson and Wayne H. Thompson, 217 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)