Thompson v. Jacobs, U--435

• Decision Date: 20 March 1975
• Docket Number: No. U--435,U--435
• Citation: 314 So.2d 797
• Parties: Erma THOMPSON, as Guardian of the property of Andrea Nanette Thompson, a minor, Appellant, v. Hazel S. JACOBS and American Liberty Insurance Company, a corporation, Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 797

314 So.2d 797

Erma THOMPSON, as Guardian of the property of Andrea Nanette Thompson, a minor, Appellant, v. Hazel S. JACOBS and American Liberty Insurance Company, a corporation, Appellees.

No. U--435.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 20, 1975.

William C. Gentry, of Bedell, Bedell, Dittmar, Smith & Zehmer, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Carle A. Felton, Jr., of Boyd, Jenerette, Leemis & Staas, Jacksonville, for appellees.

BOYER, Judge.

This appeal is from a final judgment entered on a verdict of the jury in which the jury found for the defendant in a personal injury action wherein the comparative negligence doctrine was applied. There is no issue before us relative to the propriety of application of the comparative negligence doctrine nor as to the propriety of the instructions to the jury. The sole issue is whether, under the evidence adduced, reasonable people could have found the defendant, appellee Jacobs, ¹ free of negligence proximately causing or contributing to the causing of the accident resulting in the injuries sustained by the minor Andrea Nanette Thompson.

The entire record on appeal has been carefully read and considered. The evidence on several material issues is conflicting as are the inferences to be drawn therefrom. The criteria by which the verdict of a jury must be reviewed is whether there was sufficient competent evidence before the jury from whence the several jurors, as reasonable people, could have reached the findings of fact inherent in the verdict. (Vanzant v. Davies, Fla.App.1st 1968, 215 So.2d 504) Our examination of the record in the case sub judice reveals that there was.

Application of the comparative negligence doctrine does not alter the time honored presumption of correctness by which a jury verdict is reviewed; nor does the application of that doctrine require a verdict favorable to every plaintiff who weathers a motion for a directed verdict at the close of the evidence.

The burden is upon the appellant to demonstrate that error was committed at the trial and absent that showing the judgment entered on a verdict of the jury may not be disturbed on appeal. (Greiper v. Coburn, Sup.Ct.Fla.1939, 139 Fla. 293, 190 So. 902) A party seeking to have set aside a jury verdict thereby admits, for the purposes of that particular proceeding, all material facts as testified to by the opposing party together with all inferences favorable to the opposing party which might be reasonably drawn from the evidence as a whole. (See Nelson v. Ziegler, Sup.Ct.Fla.1956, 89 So.2d 780 and McQueen v. Atlantic Truck Service, Inc., Fla.App.1st 1968, 215 So.2d 325) The test to be applied in a determination of sufficiency of the evidence is whether the record reveals some basis in fact to support the verdict. (Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. Garland, Fla.App.1st 1972, 269 So.2d 708; Staton v. Staton, Fla.App.1st 1970, 231 So.2d 531 and Vanzant v. Davis, supra)

In the last above cited case this Court said:

'In order to test the validity of this contention, we need only to examine the transcript of the trial proceedings in order to determine whether there was sufficient competent evidence before the jury from which they as reasonable men could have reached their findings of fact inherent in their verdict. This is so because, under our court system, the jury in an action at law is the trier of the facts and in such capacity resolves the conflicts in the...