Conda v. Plain
| Decision Date | 16 October 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 68--129,68--129 |
| Citation | 215 So.2d 13 |
| Parties | George V. CONDA, II, a minor, by his father and next friend, George V. Conda, and George V. Conda, individually, Appellants, v. Judith W. PLAIN, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Ted L. Wells, of the Law Office of E. B. Rood, Tampa, for appellants.
William T. Keen, of Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings & Evans, Tampa, for appellee.
Plaintiffs-appellants, a minor and his father, appeal a final judgment entered in favor of defendant-appellee and against plaintiffs-appellants on defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict.
This is a negligence action for damages suffered by the minor plaintiff arising from injuries sustained when a motorcycle operated by him collided with an automobile operated by the appellee herein.
The issues presented at trial concerned the alleged negligence of defendant-appellee and alleged contributory negligence of the minor plaintiff-appellant.
At the trial, the minor plaintiff was able only to testify: that he was operating his motorbike near the location of the accident; that he was unaware of any other traffic on the highway; and that the last thing he remembered before waking up in the hospital several days later was passing a 7--Eleven store a few blocks up the street from where the accident occurred. He was not able to recall anything else due to a severe fractured skull he received in the collision. The only direct testimony concerning the accident was given by the defendant and the passengers in her car.
The defendant's testimony was to the effect that she was operating her automobile in the southbound lane on the highway and was accompanied by her mother-in-law and a friend. She first saw the motorbike going south in the southbound lane on the highway when she was approximately two city blocks in back of it and estimated her speed and that of the motorbike at the time to be about 30 miles per hour. She stated she had no trouble seeing the motorbike and finally noticed that she was overtaking it. Defendant testified to closing within two car lengths of the motorbike and, at this point, the motorbike was on the righthand side of the southbound lane in front of the right front of her car. Defendant stated that the minor plaintiff then looked back at her, then to his front, and then the motorbike made a sharp turn to the left in front of her car. She applied her brakes but was unable to avoid the collision.
The defendant's mother-in-law and the other passenger in defendant's car testified to substantially the same facts as did the defendant.
Sergeant J. R. Miller of the Tampa Police Department conducted the investigation and further substantiated defendant's testimony by testifying that the bulk of damage to the motorbike was done on the middle of its left side, indicating that was the point of impact.
It should be noted here that the validity of a judgment non obstante veredicto should be tested by the rules applicable to motions for directed verdicts. Smith v. Peninsular Ins. Co., Fla.App.1965, 181 So.2d 212, 19 A.L.R.3d 1326.
In an action to recover damages for injuries arising out of an accident, the plaintiff has the burden of proving specific acts of negligence on the part of the defendant which proximately contributed to the injury complained of. Babcock v. Flowers, 144 Fla. 479, 198 So. 326 (1940). Something more than a mere inference of negligence must be established by the plaintiff's evidence as verdicts cannot be based on a mere probability or guess. They must rest upon evidence which can be pointed to in the record as constituting a reasonable foundation. Babcock v. Flowers, supra; Lingard v. Kiraly, Fla.App.1959, 110 So.2d 715; Allen v. Powell, 1943, 152 Fla. 443, 12 So.2d 378; Golden v. Morris, Fla.1951, 55 So.2d 714.
In the case at bar, the minor plaintiff was totally unable to testify of his own knowledge as to any material...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harvey v. Bryant
...testimony was too vague and uncertain to be of any probative value and, therefore, was properly excluded on authority of Conda v. Plain, 215 So.2d 13 (Fla.App.1968). The judgment appealed herein is therefore CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C.J., and WIGGINTON, J., concur. ...
-
Pemberton v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.
...regard to repair of the forklift, citing Cone v. Inter County Telephone & Telegraph Co., Fla., 40 So.2d 148 (1949); Conda v. Plain, Fla. App., 215 So.2d 13 (2d D.C.A.1968); General Dynamics Corp. v. Adams, 340 F.2d 271 (5 Cir.1965). The thrust of this argument is apparently that there was i......
-
Conda v. Plain
...cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, reported at 215 So.2d 13. Our jurisdiction is based on conflict between the decision sought to be reviewed and Gulle v. Boggs. Petitioner, plaintiff below, George C......