66 So.2d 501 (Fla. 1953), Wheeler v. Yellow Cab Co. of Orlando

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Florida
• Citation: 66 So.2d 501
• Docket Number: .
• Parties: WHEELER v. YELLOW CAB CO. OF ORLANDO.
• Date: 21 July 1953

Page 501

66 So.2d 501 (Fla. 1953)

WHEELER

v.

YELLOW CAB CO. OF ORLANDO.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 21, 1953

Page 502

Sam E. Murrell, Sam E. Murrell, Jr., and Robert G. Murrell, Orlando, for appellant.

Sanders, McEwan & Berson, Orlando, for appellee.

HOLT, Associate Justice.

Appellant (plaintiff below) brought this action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by her as a fare-paying passenger in one of the defendant's taxicabs. She was accompanied by other ladies, three of whom were sitting in the rear seat and one in the front seat. Appellant was a passenger in the rear seat. The accident occurred between 11:30 and 12:00 midnight, at the intersection of Garland and Livingston Streets in Orlando, Florida. The weather was clear. The other car involved in the accident was driven by one Albert Campbell, who was driving north on Garland Street (the taxi was going south on the same street) and that Campbell was making a left turn at Livingston Street and driving about 5 or 10 miles an hour. He gave a left-hand signal and started turning, struck his left arm straight out of the can window and testified that he saw the taxicab before it struck him when it was about 50 or 60 feet before the intersection. The taxicab struck the right front fender of his automobile, and the traffic light at the intersection was green both to him and to the taxi driver. Another witness testified that both Campbell and the taxi driver 'must have been both making the yellow light.' Other witnesses more or less testified as to the same thing except the plaintiff and those ladies who were with her who testified in her behalf, some of whom were claimants in their own right against the defendant for injuries sustained in the same accident.

Appellant's chief complaints against the taxi driver was that he was not paying attention; he was talking to the ladies about himself and the feud that he, the taxi driver, was having with his wife; he did not slow down, neither did he put on his brakes; that he was driving too fast; he had his head turned to the rear of the taxi and was not looking where he was going; he ran through an amber colored traffic light.

Plaintiff claimed damages for personal injuries suffered in the collision in the sum of $15,000. Defendant answered, the case was tried, submitted to a jury which rendered a verdict for the defendant. Judgment was rendered on the verdict for the defendant from which this appeal was taken.

Appellant asks reversal of the cause and a new trial (motion for which was denied by the lower court), for that (1) the jury did not bring in a proper verdict upon the evidence adduced, and (2) the court erred in granting certain charges and refusing certain instructions to the jury requested by appellant.

Disposing of the second question first, we have carefully examined the instructions in light of the law applicable thereto and find there is no merit in such contention. The charges and instructions given were proper and in accordance with law and we find there is no error in the same. Refusal of the trial judge to give those requested by appellant was not error.

The first question that the jury disregarded the manifest weight of the evidence which preponderated in favor of the

Page 503

plaintiff against the defendant must be answered adversely to appellant. It has long been the law of this state and so announced by this Court, on many occasions, that the verdict of a jury will not be disturbed unless it affirmatively appears that the action of the jury was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence or was motivated by prejudice, passion, mistake or any other improper cause. See Martin v. Stone, Fla., 51 So.2d 33, 35, in which we said: 'It is settled law that if there appears in the record substantial competent evidence in support of the verdict rendered, the same should stand and the trial court is without authority at...