Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Alverson

• Decision Date: 26 January 1928
• Citation: 95 Fla. 73,116 So. 30
• Parties: ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. v. ALVERSON.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

116 So. 30

95 Fla. 73

ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. v. ALVERSON.

Florida Supreme Court, Division B.

January 26, 1928

Error to Circuit Court, Orange County; Frank A. Smith, Judge.

Action by Lollie V. Alverson against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Evidence should not only preponderate in favor of verdict, but should produce in jury's minds reasonable belief of facts essential to verdict. In all cases the evidence should in probative force not only preponderate in favor of the verdict found, but the evidence should produce in the minds of the jury a reasonable belief of the facts essential to the verdict.

Trial court should not sustain verdict not in accord with manifest weight of evidence or with justice. And a trial court should not sustain a verdict when it is not in accord with the manifest weight of the evidence or with the justice of the case.

Passing on credibility of conflicting testimony is within jury's province; determining probative force of competent testimony is within jury's province; legal effect of evidence is matter of law; trial court should grant new trial when there is difficulty in reconciling verdict with manifest weight of evidence and justice of case. It is peculiarly the province of the jury to pass upon the credibility of conflicting testimony and to determine the probative force of competent testimony, but the legal effect of the evidence is a matter of law, and the trial court should grant a new trial when there is difficulty in reconciling the verdict with the manifest weight of the evidence and of the justice of the case.

Where evidence as to nature and extent of personal injuries is so unconvincing and amount of verdict is so grossly excessive as to warrant conclusion that jury were not governed by evidence, judgment will be reversed. Where the evidence as to the nature and extent of the personal injuries sustained is so unconvincing and the amount of the verdict is so grossly excessive as to warrant a conclusion that the jury were not governed by the evidence, the judgment will be reversed.

COUNSEL

W. E. Kay, of Jacksonville, and Alexander Akerman and W. B. Crawford, both of Orlando, for plaintiff in error.

Maguire & Voorhis, of Orlando, for defendant in error.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

The writ of error was taken to a judgment awarding $20,000 damages for alleged personal injuries.

In all cases 'the evidence should' in probative force 'not only preponderate in favor of the' verdict found, 'but * * * the evidence should produce in the minds of the jury a reasonable belief of the facts essential to the verdict.' Escambia County Light & Power Co. v Sutherland, 61 Fla. 167, text 194, 55 So. 83; Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Royal Palm Soap Co., 80 Fla. 800, 86 So. 835. And a trial court should not sustain a verdict when it is not in accord with the manifest weight of the evidence or with the justice of the case. Shultz v Pacific Ins. Co., 14 Fla. 73, text 94; Miller v White, 23 Fla. 301, 2 So. 614; Meinhardt v Mode, 25 Fla. 181, 5 So. 672; Tampa Waterworks Co v. Mugge, ...