Jordan Furniture Co. v. Goggans
| Decision Date | 12 March 1958 |
| Citation | 101 So.2d 114 |
| Parties | JORDAN FURNITURE COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Camille T. GOGGANS, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Blackwell, Walker & Gray and Willis H. Flick, Miami, for appellant.
Paty, Downey & Daves, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Appellant Jordan, defendant below in an automobile negligence case, seeks reversal of an order of the trial judge granting to appellee Goggans a new trial after a jury verdict in favor of appellant.
The determining point is whether there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict of the jury and therefore preclude the granting of a new trial.
Appellee Camille T. Goggans was riding as a passenger in an automobile owned and driven by her husband James H. Goggans. About 4:00 p. m., November 25, 1955, the parties were proceeding in a northerly direction on State Road 7 in Broward County. A truck owned by appellant and driven by its employee Charlie Parker was proceeding in the same direction at some considerable distance ahead of the Goggans' car. Two other automobiles separated the truck from the Goggans. Mr. Goggans passed the two cars ahead of him and then proceeded to pass the truck, about two trucklengths south of a county road known as Old Bailey Road running westerly off of State Road 7. The driver of the truck testified that he turned on his left-turn signal indicator about 500 feet south of the point where he attempted to turn. He claimed that at that point and again when he was about 30 feet south of the turn he looked in his rear-view mirror and saw no approaching vehicle. At the latter point he also claims to have indicated with a left-arm signal that he intended to turn. As he started to turn he claimed that he heard the brakes and, for the first time, the horn of the Goggans' car. The automobile struck the truck with alleged resulting injuries to Mr. and Mrs. Goggans.
The case was tried before a jury on issues of negligence of the truck driver and contributory negligence of Mr. Goggans. The jury was properly instructed that Mrs. Goggans could not be held responsible for the contributory negligence, if any, of her husband and, further, that she could recover upon proof of any negligence of the truck driver which proximately caused her injury. The jury brought in a verdict for the defendant as against both Mr. and Mrs. Goggans. After the verdict both parties filed a motion for new trial. The trial judge denied the motion of Mr. Goggans but granted the motion of the wife for the reasons hereafter stated. Mr. Goggans has not appealed from the judgment entered subsequent to the denial of his motion for new trial. Jordan seeks reversal of the order granting the motion for new trial filed by Mrs. Goggans.
It is contended by the appellant that there was adequate evidence on the basis of which the jury could properly have determined that the sole proximate cause of the injury to Mrs. Goggans was her husband's negligence. This being so, contends the appellant, the trial judge invaded the province of the jury by awarding the new trial.
It is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cloud v. Fallis
...with decisions of this court in Hart v. Held, 149 Fla. 33, 5 So.2d 878, Martin v. Stone, Fla., 51 So.2d 33, and Jordan Furniture Co. v. Goggans, Fla. 101 So.2d 114, on the same point of law, namely, the test by which should be determined the propriety of an order of a judge granting a motio......
-
Cloud v. Fallis, 185
...action is that he disagrees with the jury. The ultimate of this development in the rule appears expressed in Jordan Furniture Company v. Goggans, Fla.1958, 101 So.2d 114, 116. In that case the Court 'We note from the order of the trial judge granting the new trial that he was of the view th......
-
Erlacher v. Leonard Bros. Transfer
...to pull out of the slide, into the collision. Under the facts this was a typical jury case. As was said in Jordan Furniture Company v. Goggans, Fla.1958, 101 So.2d 114, 116: '* * * We recognize that an order of a trial judge granting a motion for a new trial is accorded a strong presumption......
-
Bush v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.
...exhibited by granting a motion for new trial, is entitled to a strong presumption of correctness on appeal. Jordan Furniture Co. v. Goggans, 101 So.2d 114, 116 (Fla.1952); Bailey v. Lloyd, 62 So.2d 56 (Fla.1952). This is undoubtedly what happened in this case. The trial judge obviously perc......