Greer v. Thweatt
Decision Date | 19 September 1967 |
Docket Number | No. I-242,I-242 |
Citation | 202 So.2d 574 |
Parties | Robert Lee GREER, Appellant, v. Mary Holliday THWEATT, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Hopkins & Mabie, Pensacola, for appellant.
Fisher & Hepner, Pensacola, for appellee.
The plaintiff in an automobile collision case has appealed from a judgment for the defendant entered by the Escambia County Court of Record, notwithstanding a jury verdict for the plaintiff.
Whether that judgment was properly entered by the court pursuant to the rules governing the entry of a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, is the question presented for our determination in this appeal.
The jury at the trial, under the pleadings, evidence, and jury instructions, by returning a verdict for the plaintiff necessarily found that he was not guilty of contributory negligence. The trial court in entering the judgment for the defendant notwithstanding the verdict, expressly found that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. This situation presents a classic case calling for a clear delineation of the distinction between the functions of the jury and the court in the determination of factual issues at a jury trial.
In the recent case of Love v. Adams, 194 So.2d 55 (Fla.App.1967), we quoted with approval the following from Deese v. White Belt Dairy Farms, Inc., 160 So.2d 543 (Fla.App.1964) as a correct statement of the rules governing the entry of a judgment notwithstanding the verdict:
In addition to the just-quoted rules, another rule applicable in the present consideration is that, in actions at law like the present one, the issues of negligence and contributory negligence should be submitted to the jury for determination and ordinarily should not be disposed of by the court in a summary manner, as through the entry of a judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Seibels, Bruce & Co. v. Giddings
...for a jury's determination. Rofer v. Jensen, Fla.App.1962, 141 So.2d 791; Musachia v. Rosman, Fla.App.1966, 190 So.2d 47; Greer v. Thweatt, Fla.App.1967, 202 So.2d 574; Lopez v. Deatrick Leasing Corporation, Fla.App.1970, 237 So.2d 284. And, if there is any evidence that tends to support a ......
-
Dura Corp. v. Wallace
...son operated the mower. Gresham v. Courson, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 33; Williams v. Hutson, Fla.App.1966, 186 So.2d 558; Greer v. Thweatt, Fla.App.1967, 202 So.2d 574; Acme Electric, Inc. v. Travis, Fla.App.1969, 218 So.2d The original plaintiff, Wallace, has cross-assigned error in the tri......
-
Nofal v. Tulip Realty Co. of Fla., 67--668
...contained therein is sufficient evidence upon which a jury might lawfully base a verdict for the plaintiff. See also: Greer v. Thweatt, Fla.App.1967, 202 So.2d 574; Daily v. Hendricks, Fla.App.1967, 200 So.2d 566; Love v. Adams, Fla.App.1967, 194 So.2d 55; Smith v. Peninsular Insurance Comp......
-
Stirling v. Sapp
...in withdrawing the case from the jury and substituting his own evaluation of the weight of the evidence.' See also Greer v. Thweatt, 202 So.2d 574 (Fla.App.1st 1967). In evaluating the facts as stated in the District Court opinion (209 So.2d 251), it is apparent that the defendants' automob......