Hernandez v. Motrico, Inc.
| Decision Date | 08 May 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-911,78-911 |
| Citation | 370 So.2d 836 |
| Parties | Roberto HERNANDEZ and Esther Hernandez, his wife, Appellants, v. MOTRICO, INC., etc., et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Milton Kelner, Miami, for appellants.
Preddy, Kutner & Hardy, Greene & Cooper and Robyn Greene, Miami, for appellees.
Before HENDRY and SCHWARTZ, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.
By this appeal we are asked to determine whether the trial court committed error in granting the motion for a directed verdict in favor of defendants/appellees at the close of appellant/plaintiff's case. We find error and reverse.
Appellants, Roberto and Esther Hernandez, 1 instituted suit against appellees and others for injuries sustained in a shooting incident in the cocktail lounge of the bar of the Centro Vasco Restaurant. The trial court entered a default on liability against Omar Jesus Gonzalez, the individual who was the assailant, after he failed to respond to the complaint; the court also granted a motion for summary judgment and dismissed the insurer of an individual who had been arguing with the assailant prior to the shooting. Thus, the case was tried against the remaining defendants, the appellees Motrico, Inc., owner of the restaurant and bar; Juanitocho Saizarbitoria, the manager; Armando Flores, the bartender; and the insurer of the restaurant. The basis for the negligence action is the allegation that the defendants failed to exercise due care to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition and to guard against subjecting the plaintiff/patron to dangers of which the owners/operators were cognizant or might reasonably have foreseen.
Subsequent to the rendition of the final judgment pursuant to the directed verdict and the denial of a motion for new trial, Mr. and Mrs. Hernandez filed this appeal. The sole issue raised is whether there was evidence or reasonable inference therefrom to support the plaintiffs' cause of action, thus precluding the directed verdict as a matter of law.
It is well established that a directed verdict should be granted the defendant by the trial court at the close of plaintiff's case only when it is clearly apparent to the court that no evidence has been submitted on which the jury could lawfully find a verdict for the plaintiff, and the conclusion reached by the trial judge under the circumstances is a conclusion of law resulting from the presence of a state of facts that permits no other legal result. MacAlpine v. Martin, 205 So.2d 347 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967); Sun Life Insurance Co. of America v. Evans, 340 So.2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.480, Florida Statutes Annotated, Volume 30. However, the direction of a verdict can constitute an encroachment on the right of a litigant to a jury trial and an invasion by the court of the province of a jury which is contrary to constitutional guaranties, 2 where there is any evidence to justify a possible verdict for the non-moving party even if a preponderance of the evidence appears to favor the movant. See Budgen v. Brady, 103 So.2d 672 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958). The authority of the court to direct a verdict should be exercised with caution, and this is especially true in negligence cases where the function of a jury to weigh and evaluate the evidence is particularly important since reasonable men often draw varied conclusions from the same evidence....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keene v. Chicago Bridge and Iron Co., 89-2542
...applies. See Reinhart v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad, 422 So.2d 41 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). 449 So.2d at 365. See also Hernandez v. Motrico, Inc., 370 So.2d 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). The erroneous granting of a motion for directed verdict notwithstanding the jury's verdict implicates the constitu......
-
Collins v. School Bd. of Broward County
...for the plaintiff, should a directed verdict be granted. Ligman v. Tardiff, 466 So.2d 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Hernandez v. Motrico, Inc., 370 So.2d 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). It goes without saying that a motion for directed verdict should be treated with special caution, and this is especial......
-
Holley v. Mt. Zion Terrace Apartments, Inc.
...East Coast R. Co. v. Booth, 148 So.2d 536 (Fla.3d DCA 1963), cert. denied, 155 So.2d 551 (Fla.1963); see also Hernandez v. Motrico, Inc., 370 So.2d 836 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Angell v. F. Avanzini Lumber Co., 363 So.2d 571 (Fla.2d DCA 1978); Sparks v. Ober, 192 So.2d 81 (Fla.3d DCA 1966); compa......
-
Fernandez v. Miami Jai-Alai, Inc.
...Agency, Inc. v. Scott, 394 So.2d 559 (Fla. 3d DCA), pet. for review denied, 402 So.2d 609 (Fla.1981); Hernandez v. Motrico, Inc., 370 So.2d 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Doll v. Robbins, 303 So.2d 338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 317 So.2d 762 Second, the grounds relied on for the new trial ......