Guhman v. Florida Power & Light Co.
| Decision Date | 10 April 1962 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 61-112,61-113,s. 61-112 |
| Citation | 139 So.2d 749 |
| Parties | Bertie GUHMAN, a widow, for the Use and Benefit of the Travelers Insurance Company, a corporation, and Bertie Guhman, a widow, individually, Appellants, v. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellee. James A. PILKINGTON, for the Use and Benefit of the Travelers Insurance Company, a corporation, and James A. Pilkington, individually, Appellants, v. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Dean, Adams, Fischer & Gautier, Miami, for appellants.
Brigham, Wright, Goodwin & Dence, Miami, for appellee.
Before CARROLL, BARKDULL and HENDRY, JJ.
The above causes were previously consolidated for briefing and argument.
The appellants, plaintiffs below, seek review of an order directing a verdict for the appellee, defendant below, at the close of plaintiffs' case.
This is another instance where a crane was being utilized in the vicinity of a live power line, resulting in infliction of personal injuries.
It is an established rule that in considering the propriety of a directed verdict for the defendant, the court is required to evaluate the testimony in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and that every reasonable intendment deducible from the evidence must be indulged in the plaintiff's favor. Rodi v. Florida Greyhound Lines, Fla.1952, 62 So.2d 355; Brightwell v. Beem, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 320.
In reviewing the record on appeal in the instant case in light of the aforementioned rule, there is adequate evidence of negligence to justify submitting the cause to the jury. Bell v. Florida Power & Light Company, Fla.App.1958, 106 So.2d 224; Ahearn v. Florida Power & Light Company, Fla.App.1961, 129 So.2d 457. Ordinarily, issues of negligence or contributory negligence comprise questions to be answered by the jury. The record on appeal reveals no evidence sufficient to hold the appellants guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. Therefore, this cause will of necessity be one for a jury determination. Saunders v. Kaplan, Fla.App.1958, 101 So.2d 181; Ahearn v. Florida Power & Light Company, supra.
As this case is to be retried, we feel it necessary to review the other errors urged by the appellants. They contend that the trial court erred in refusing to admit into evidence the following: Testimony of the fact that a Florida Power & Light Company truck arrived on the scene...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Franklin v. Dade County
...Electric Co., Fla.1952, 60 So.2d 179, 40 A.L.R.2d 1293; Brightwell v. Beem, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 320, 322; Guhman v. Florida Power & Light Company, Fla.App.1962, 139 So.2d 749, 750; Guerriero v. Adams, supra, Fla.App.1966, 190 So.2d On so considering the evidence presented by and on behalf of......
-
Homan v. Dade County
...179; Rodi v. Florida Greyhound Lines, Fla.1952, 62 So.2d 355; Brightwell v. Beem, Fla.1959, 90 So.2d 320; Guhman v. Florida Power & Light Company, Fla.App.1962, 139 So.2d 749; Whitman v. Red Top Sedan Service, Inc., Fla.App.1969, 218 So.2d 213. Only in the event there is no evidence from wh......
-
McKenzie v. Atlantic Manor, Inc.
...the propriety of a motion for directed verdict, the motion is construed most strongly against the movant. See: Guhman v. Florida Power & Light Company, Fla.App.1962, 139 So.2d 749; Hatch v. Sokolow, Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 341. And all reasonable inferences are in favor of the plaintiff's c......
-
Whitman v. Red Top Sedan Service, Inc.
...Electric Co., Fla.1952, 60 So.2d 179, 40 A.L.R.2d 1293; Brightwell v. Beem, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 320, 322; Guhman v. Florida Power & Light Company, Fla.App.1962, 139 So.2d 749, 750; Guerriero v. Adams, Fla.App.1966, 190 So.2d 432, 433.2 Kerr v. Caraway, Fla.1955, 78 So.2d 571, 572; Mason v. R......