Chomont v. Ward
| Citation | 103 So.2d 635 |
| Parties | Jacob CHOMONT, Appellant, v. A. C. WARD, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 23 April 1958 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
J. B. Patterson and Ronald B. Sladon, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Fleming, O'Bryan & Fleming and Theodore R. Hainline, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
Appellant Chomont, who was plaintiff below, seeks reversal of a judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict in favor of appellee Ward, who was defendant below, in an action for damages allegedly resulting from the negligent operation of an automobile.
The point to determine is whether the jury completely disregarded the evidence in finding for the appellee-defendant and, if so, whether the trial judge committed error in denying appellant-plaintiff's motion for new trial.
Appellant Chomont was parked near a school in Fort Lauderdale awaiting the arrival of his two sons. Appellee Ward backed his automobile out of a driveway on the opposite side of the street. In the backing process the Ward automobile collided with the left front door of the automobile in which Chomont was sitting. It is undisputed that the damage to the Chomont automobile amounted to $34. The real contest is over the personal injuries claimed.
There appears to be no question but that Mr. Ward was guilty of some negligence. Just prior to the accident he had been treated by an eye doctor who had placed some 'drops' in his eye. Admittedly, he did not see the Chomont car. Judging from the record there would appear to be no reason why he could not have seen the car if he had exercised due care. Chomont sued, claiming damages for physical injury and property damages to his car. The jury returned a verdict finding Ward not guilty.
In passing we mention that Chomont made no motion for a directed verdict at the close of all of the evidence. He filed a post-trial motion for new trial. This motion was denied and judgment in favor of Ward was entered on the verdict. Reversal of the judgment is here sought.
Appellant contends that the proof of negligence was actually not in dispute. This being so he seeks reversal on the proposition that the jury capriciously failed to award him damages despite the fact that it was admitted that he suffered damages to his automobile to the extent of $34.
Appellee Ward here contends that we should not review the record for the reason that appellant failed to ask for a directed verdict at the close of all of the evidence. He further contends that the testimony of appellant was so completely discredited that the jury was justified in declining to believe it.
We first dispose of the procedural question which is to the effect that we should not now consider the ruling of the trial judge on the motion for a new trial because of the failure of the plaintiff to ask for a directed verdict at the close of all of the evidence. In this connection appellee Ward relies on Lee County Oil Company v. Marshall, Fla.App. 1st Dist. 1957, 98 So.2d 510; and Southwestern Lumber Company v. Roberts, Fla.App. 1st Dist. 1958, 99 So.2d 875. Admittedly the contention of appellee on this proposition is supported by the cited cases decided by the District Court of Appeal. However, this problem was recently presented to this Court and has been determined by us adversely to the position of the appellee. See Ruth v. Sorensen, Fla., 104 So.2d 10. Although the opinion last cited has not yet been published, we there held 'that the order of a trial judge denying a motion for new trial on the ground that the verdict of the jury is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence is reviewable in the appellate courts of this state on an appeal from the final judgment, even though no motion for directed verdict was made by the appellant under Rule 2.7, Fla.Rules Civ.Proc.' The reasons for our view are adequately set forth in the case cited and it is unnecessary to delineate them further in this opinion.
We return to a consideration of the points raised by the appellant. It will be recalled that appellant filed a motion for new trial. By this motion the trial court was requested: Appellant Chomont now insists that since he proved negligence and proved property damage to the extent of $34, the jury flaunted the manifest weight of the evidence by finding for the appellee and the trial judge committed error in denying the motion for new trial.
It should be recalled that appellant filed no motion for a directed verdict neither did he ask the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scruggs v. U.S., 94-14274-CIV-MOORE.
...of his or her injuries but also must prove that the injuries were proximately caused by the negligence of the defendant. Chomont v. Ward, 103 So.2d 635, 638 (Fla. 1958). 101. The defendant cannot be held liable for injuries that were not caused by his or her negligence. Airstar, Inc. v. Gub......
-
Shaw v. Puleo
...the finders of fact when not contradicted by proof of equal dignity, nor open to doubt from any reasonable point of view. [Chomont v. Ward, (Fla.1958), 103 So.2d 635] * * * * * 'The jury was not, however, justified on the evidence before it in finding that plaintiffs were not entitled to re......
-
Anastasio v. Summersett
...v. Bacon, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 678; White v. Acker, supra note 4; Goldstein v. Walters, Fla.App.1961, 126 So.2d 759; Chomont v. Ward, Fla.1958, 103 So.2d 635.7 cf. City of Miami v. Smith, Fla.1964, 165 So.2d 748; Miller v. James, Fla.App.1966, 187 So.2d 901; Freeman v. Bandlow, Fla.App.1......
-
Scott v. Andrews
...I believe this case should be controlled by the principles contained in Glasser v. Leary, Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 683; Chomont v. Ward, Fla.1958, 103 So.2d 635; and Heymann v. Fusco, Fla.App.1961, 132 So.2d 216. The only purpose a new trial will serve is to permit another jury to view the eviden......