Good v. Ozer, 57-352
| Decision Date | 06 February 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 57-352,57-352 |
| Citation | 100 So.2d 204 |
| Parties | William D. GOOD, Appellant, v. Blanche S. OZER, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Gershon S. Miller, Miami Beach, for appellant.
Brown, Dean, Adams & Fischer, and L. N. Preddy, Miami, for appellee.
William D. Good sued Blanche Ozer for injuries to himself and damages to his automobile arising out of a collision which occurred by virtue of Blanche Ozer pulling her car suddenly from a parked position along the edge of a highway into the side of the car of William D. Good, while the said Good was proceeding in his lane of traffic adjacent to said row of parked cars in a lawful manner. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence, the trial court directed a verdict for the defendant, motion for new trial was denied, final judgment was entered and this appeal followed.
We shall refer to the parties in this opinion as they appeared in the trial court.
It is the defendant's theory that the action of the trial court should be upheld because the evidence failed to show any act of negligence on her part. This conclusion is reached by the defendant on the basis of the conclusion that plaintiff's testimony established that he never saw the defendant's car until the moment of impact and, therefore, no act of negligence has been established upon which the defendant could be held liable. See Gilmer v. Rubin, Fla.App.1957, 98 So.2d 367. This must have been the conclusion reached by the trial judge. We do not agree, however, that the record supports the conclusion reached by the defendant. An analysis of the testimony leaves no doubt in our mind that the sum of plaintiff's testimony was that the car pulled out from the curb without previous warning and struck his car in the side. The jury could have believed, and we think the evidence would clearly have supported the belief, that the accident occurred in the manner described in an answer to a question propounded to the plaintiff, viz.:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Katz v. Harrington, s. 68--966
...the evidence or lawful inferences which may be drawn from the evidence would sustain the position of the non-moving party. Good v. Ozzer, Fla.App.1958, 100 So.2d 204; City of Hialeah v. Revels, Fla.App.1960, 123 So.2d 400; Stanek v. Houston, Fla.App.1964, 165 So.2d 825; Whitman v. Red Top S......
-
Wilson v. Bailey-Lewis-Williams, Inc., BAILEY-LEWIS-WILLIAM
...whether or not there is any evidence or reasonable inference therefrom to support the plaintiff's cause of action. See: Good v. Ozer, Fla.App.1958, 100 So.2d 204; Belden v. Lynch, Fla.App.1961, 126 So.2d 578. And, if there is no evidence or reasonable inference therefrom to support the plai......
-
Belden v. Lynch, 1357
...would justify a verdict for the plaintiff, then it is the duty of the court to submit the question to the jury. Good v. Ozer, Fla.App.1958, 100 So.2d 204, 205. In a negligence case, the court should never direct a verdict for one party unless the evidence is such that no view which the jury......
-
Thorsell v. Miller
...susceptible of supporting the issues presented. Cutchins v. Seaboard Air Line Railroad Co., Fla.1958, 101 So.2d 857; Good v. Ozer, Fla.App.1958, 100 So.2d 204. A verdict should not be directed where there is a conflict in the evidence and the inferences to be drawn therefrom. Bayshore Dev. ......