Florida Power & Light Co. v. Bell
Decision Date | 23 July 1959 |
Parties | FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO., a corporation; and Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., a corporation, Petitioners, v. Barbara Jean BELL, Lois Ann Bell, James E. Bell, and Lloyd E. Bell, all minors, by their guardian, The First National Bank in Fort Lauderdale, Florida; and Paris G. Singer, their next friend, Respondents. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Brigham, Wright, Dressler & Rearick and George W. Wright, Jr., Miami, for Florida Power & Light Co.
S. O. Carson and Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder, Atkins, Carson & Wahal, Miami, for Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.
Nichols, Gaither, Green, Frates & Beckham and Sam Daniels, Miami, for respondents.
Probable jurisdiction of this Court herein has been noted and writ of certiorari issued.
The two petitions for certiorari, filed by Southern Bell Telephone and Florida Power Company, are addressed to a decision of the District Court, Third District, by which it reversed a circuit court judgment holding that the evidence in the cause, an action for negligence allegedly causing the death of the respondents' father, was insufficient to present a jury question.
The respondents' father, Edward Bell, was killed when a crane operated by a fellow employee struck a power line while the crew was engaged in laying telephone conduits. The reviewing court reached its conclusion that a jury question was presented upon the basis of certain statements of decedent's foreman, who gave notice of the operations to petitioners, and related testimony. Examination of the opinion and record shows ambiguity in the evidence as to what was to be done to make the area safe.
Respondent takes the position that the case is controlled by the pronouncements of this Court in Ansin v. Thurston, Fla., 101 So.2d 808, 810, relative to the character of 'conflict' essential to jurisdiction here. 1
The argument of petitioners in these proceedings is, essentially, that the district court has erroneously found on the basis of conjecture that a jury question was presented in this case and that the trial court erred in directing a verdict for defendant at the close of evidence on the issue of liability. The asserted conflict is, of course, with the multitude of decisions relative to the character of evidence essential to present a jury question or sustain a verdict. 2 It should be plain, upon the most elementary reflection, that this controversy, instead of revolving around a 'point of law' as required by Article V, Florida Constitution, involves an evaluation or weighing of the evidence in the case by this Court to determine applicability of undisputed principles of law. This, we conclude, is not within the intendment of Article V.
A conflict might conceivably arise either from the adoption of opposing rules or from the application of the same principle to reach a different result upon the same facts. In the first instance a conflict of principle will be obvious and the existence of collateral issues of fact cannot serve to make the decisions reconcilable on the disputed point. 3 But the case at bar illustrates perfectly the situation where the asserted conflict depends directly upon the quantum and character of proof. The contention, basically, is that the plaintiff's evidence on the disputed point is 'conjectural,' and in order to find that the court's decision to the contrary is in conflict with a prior decision, it must be shown that the allegedly conflicting cases are 'on all fours' factually in all material respects. 4 This the petitioners have failed to do. Whether or not we would agree with the court's conclusion in this case, we do not think that the evidence was sufficiently clear or settled or in line with that in any earlier case to bring the decision in collision with another and create a conflict of authority on the point.
As pointed out in the above cited opinions, this is the limit of our authority to review, in this area, the decision of an otherwise final appellate tribunal. The propriety of such limitations on the right of review has been repeatedly adjudicated: 5 And elsewhere: 6
Arguments of the same general nature as made by petitioners herein have been similarly disposed of in other jurisdictions having limited review of appellate decisions:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
King v. State
...decisions on the 'conflict theory.' Ansin v. Thurston, Fla., 101 So.2d 808; Lake v. Lake, Fla., 103 So.2d 639; Florida Power and Light Co. v. Bell, Fla., 113 So.2d 697; Nielsen v. City of Sarasota, Fla., 117 So.2d As I analyze the opinion of the majority it practically directs the District ......
-
Finney v. State
...substantially the same controlling facts as were involved in allegedly conflicting prior decisions of this Court. Florida Power & Light Co. v. Bell, Fla.1959, 113 So.2d 697. 117 So.2d at 734. We conclude that the test which has been articulated for Supreme Court conflict jurisdiction clearl......
-
Aguilera v. Inservices, Inc.
...substantially the same controlling facts as were involved in allegedly conflicting prior decisions of this Court. Florida Power & Light Co. v. Bell, 113 So.2d 697 (Fla. 1959). .... When our jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to this provision of the constitution we are not permitted the judic......
-
Florida Power and Light Co. v. Lively, 81-1571
...substantially the same controlling facts as were involved in allegedly conflicting prior decisions of this Court. Florida Power & Light Co. v. Bell, 113 So.2d 697 [Fla.1959].' "422 So.2d at 915.3 See supra note 2.4 The court does not directly accuse the plaintiff Glenn Lively of being at fa......